Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 22

< August 21	August 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 keep, any subsequent merger is an editorial issue. Sandstein 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and natural therapies

Since the first AfD, the consensus is that the article is indeed a WP:POVFORK. In response to discussions after the AfD on the article talk page and on Talk:Major_depressive_disorder, it was renamed to Treatment of depression and it was merged with the content from Major_depressive_disorder#Treatment. An editor ~~that has yet to participate in any of these discussions~~ has reverted the renaming and reverted all edits involving merging of information from Major depressive disorder. Treatment of depression has since been restored, so the only question left is what to do with the POV fork. Ronz (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I participated in the first AFD and subsequent discussions. No consensus for the recent move/merge was established and Ronz described this action himself as bold. The article currently has a clear focus upon natural remedies or therapies for depression and this topic is well-supported by numerous sources. Since it is accepted that the main article on depression is too long, spin-offs such as this are indicated. This article and its theme predates Ronz's later rival article Treatment of depression and so, if there is a new fork here, it is Ronz's version. Since there appears to be much to be said on this topic, deletion is quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Treatment of depression plagiarizes much of this material which has been copied by means of cut/paste in violation of the GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that the deletion proposed would be improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I was unable to find any of your contributions to any of the subsequent discussions. Maybe you could provide a diff or timestamp? --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Depression and natural therapies#Article rename for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So you weren't involved in any of the discussions about merging the article, or creating Treatment of depression, or otherwise commenting on anything that led up to the creation of the "bold" editing, correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Treatment of depression Sceptre ^(talk) 01:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is way too much information in this article to call for a merge. Now that Colonel Warden as added additonal sections, from here on out it's probably vandalism to call for even merge. Even if WP:AGF good faith is assumed, I believe there is something wrong with editors or admins taking this WP:AFD nomination seriously. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is way too much information in this article to call for a merge" The article is small and easily merged. Most of the information is already duplicated elsewhere. Further, much, if not all, of the information in the article are just viewpoints that have no balancing viewpoints as required for NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I'd like to say that this article is not a POVfork. A few months ago I went through it and carefully weeded out any statements that implied a point of view, and made the article as impartial as an article can be. I agree that originally it wasn't impartial enough; the reason was that it was my first article and it takes a while to get the hang of things around here. But now the article is impartial. I have asked Ronz, who seems to be the most stubborn critic, to point out where the POV is in the article, but he has declined to do so.

I have noticed that some people around here seem to be biased against natural therapies, and this seems to be behind much of the criticism, but even if one thinks natural therapies are all rubbish, they are still around and they are a valid subject for an article in an encyclopedia. Whether one agrees with them or not is irrelevant. The purpose of articles in this encyclopedia is to tell people about a particular subject, not to agree or disagree with it. Personally, I don't think it really matters whether the article is kept in its present form or merged with an article on the treatment of depression, but it is not POV. I am happy to apologise to everyone if the original article wasn't as impartial as it should have been, but it's impartial now (unless someone's been changing it since I rewrote it).

Sardaka (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: This vote appears to be Keep or merge given "I don't think it really matters whether the article is kept in its present form or merged with an article on the treatment of depression" above.

Could you give some rationale as to why you don't think this is a POVFORK, either here or on the talk page? NPOV problems are resolved by balancing points of view, not simply removing any "out any statements that implied a point of view" as identified by an editor. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-edit to remove the strong POV bias in favor of natural therapies, as shown in the lede paragraph, in misclassification--exercise a a therapy for depression is mainstream medicine, and to add statements explaining the very limited nature of the evidence for effectivenesss of some of the therapies, instead of talking about an "effective range" of therapies that may not actually have sound evidence for being effective. DGG (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Treatment of depression ... which I had thought was the talkpage consensus up until this weekend. Like it or not, marketers frequently emblazon products with Natural! or All natural! as a selling point, which by implication if not intent puts this article in the 'doctors know only how to burn, poison, and cut' camp. This unnecessarily gives the article the appearance of a POV slant irrespective of the good work neutralizing the tone of the article itself. Alternative treatments to depression (as in Alternative medicine) is an option as a different way to organize the subarticles, but one that my fabulous psychic powers predict would swiftly devolve into an unending discussion of whether 'that which works' is inherently medicine rather than alternative medicine; also, diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes have always been mainstream. Further, many of the sources establishing natural as an organizational category conflate natural and alternative, but we can do better than that. A much cleaner solution is simply to have the one spin-out from Major depressive disorder and duly describe each treatment and practice there. Fuller treatments of each topic belong at the respective articles or sections. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Treatment of depression as it should be a subsection of that article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Firefly. There is a lot here and I am not sure that a merge would suffice. However, weak merge if Keep fails. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 5

Too far in future, no reliable sources indicating it will be made, see WP:CRYSTAL. (Article was recreated after previous deletion via PROD, so I have changed PROD tag to AFD nomination). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge into Final Destination (series) as this still at least three years, so it is too far in the future as per Snigbrook. --Gman124^talk 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL: the lone "source" is about Final Destination 4, and I can't find any reliable sources to verify that the filmmakers are even considering a fifth installment. Cliff smith ^talk 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no references at all to #5, just to #4 (as Cliff Smith notes above) SkierRMH (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Transat Flight 961

Non-notable routine aviation incident in which nobody was hurt. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT#NEWS. Sandstein 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides being the in-depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, the incident instigated scrutiny and changes in inspection policy of rudders on A-300s after years of investigation as reported by the Toronto Star .[8][9] There are no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guidelines or anything like it in Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit] Why delete?: Air Transat Flight 961 Link title

Sandstein, with all do respect, are you a pilot? As an airline pilot myself, TSC961 was a major and life threatening incident, but great pilots on the flightdeck dealt with it appropriately. You say all aviation incidents are too common and not all can have a page, yet you have a page on jetBlue Flight 292? That was a small incident, a malfunctioning nose gear and not life threatening. The only reason it was largely publicized was because it was jetBlue's first major (albeit minor) incident. Another thing far too common is rwy incursions and mid-air near misses, yet you allow a page regarding the JAL near miss with the DC-10 and 747. If this is not enough information as to why not delete the page, I would be glad to explain the situation in far more detail. Imagine being in an Airbus A310 and losing a rudder-not a common event. I would not post anything about the recent 'smoke in the cabin' on that AA 757 at LAX. Those are too common-twice a week maybe. The Transat incident was an isolated event that provided insights into AA 587, and so, sir, I do not think you could tell the 271 pax/crew on that Airbus that it was minor-a dutch roll. Imagine two experienced, widebody Airbus pilots, doing a secondary walkaround, and to their shock, they had no rudder. By the way, I was on that aircraft (not the pilot though). My aritcle has more place here than JB292. This is not a routine incident. We do not practice rudder separation in the simulator, so, with all do respect, please only state what you know and I trust you are not a pilot. I mean no disrespect and hope that we can be friends but please save that for a topic you have experience in. Thank you Oakshade for your comment.

Thanks very much, Captain Cody Diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Diamond. No, I am not a pilot, just an encyclopedia editor. I apologise if my nomination of this article for deletion surprises you, but since we are an encyclopedia aimed at the general public, our criteria for inclusion are somewhat generic and do not necessarily take into account what the experts in a particular field consider notable. According to our general notability criteria, a topic is notable for inclusion as its own article if it has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, such as mainstream media or relevant, preferably peer-reviewed expert publications. The article is currently sourced to a website by the Flight Safety Foundation, a website called airdisaster.com, and a website called airdisaster.net. It is not immediately clear that these meet our requirements for reliable sources. Moreover, we as a community of editors have come to an agreement that not all that is newsworthy is also worthy for inclusion, as noted at WP:NOT#NEWS. For these reasons, we have recently agreed to delete a number of articles about aviation incidents as unsuitable for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia, inclunding American Airlines Flight 31, XL Airways Flight 237, Flybe Flight 7016, Air Mauritius Flight MK745, Qantas Flight 692, AirAsia Flight 104 and United Airlines Flight 858. If, however, there does turn out to be coverage in multiple reliable sources that indicates how this incident is substantially more notable than other incidents in which some malfunction occurred aboard an aircraft, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. (I do admit that I did not notice at first glance that the problem was that the aircraft lost a whole rudder; I recommend writing an effective article lead to avoid this.) Thanks for your understanding, Sandstein 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind response Sandstein. I understand what you have said but still disagree. You also have a story about Richard Reid and American Airlines Flight 63. Now that is a regular story. Today, there was a SWISS A321 that diverted to GVA b/c of a bomb threat. And another thing, just because this was not in the news does not mean people should not know about it. Without people coming out with something as important as this, there would be no journalism. Why should we only focus on things in the news-half of it is wrong anyway. So, why not post something that is newsworthy but not discovered yet. It keeps things going. All of the above articles listed are 'normal' emergencies paracticed in simulators and have published procedures on how to deal with them. There is no procedure about how to fly a plane, let alone an Airbus A310, without a rudder. So, I ask of you to please not delete the article based on what I have said. I hope we can have a friendly relationship on wikipedia. If you need any more reasons/examples as to why not to delete, please do not heitate to ask.

Thank you for your time, Captain Diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sandstein, Aviation Safety Network is a trusted source with CNN. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not sure that I understand you correctly. We do not have an article about American Airlines Flight 63 as such; the title redirects to an article about the 2001 Shoe bomb plot. We're also not allowed to write about "something that is newsworthy but not discovered yet": that's called "original research" here on Wikipedia, and it's forbidden.

I've noted, however, that Gatoclass has added a "Guardian" report on the incident to the article, so I'm neutral on the deletion right now. It would help if we could show that another reliable source (i.e. one with a verifiable reputation for fact-checking) has dedicated substantial coverage to the incident. Sandstein 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me see if I understand this right. There were no injuries. The plane landed safely. It did a "dutch roll", which, just as a "dutch treat" being no treat at all, is not a roll, but rather a case where the sides of the airplane rock up and down, and the crew climbed altitude and overcame the dutch roll. The broken rudder was replaced. The airplane is still in service. OK, I'm glad this wasn't a tragedy like USAir Flight 427 was. Perhaps this footnote in aviation history can be mentioned elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That there were no deaths or injuries has absolutely nothing to do with notability and doesn't mean it wasn't the in-depth subject of independent sources which is the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Many flights with no deaths are in fact very notable, like Air Transat Flight 236 and JetBlue Airways Flight 292. --Oakshade (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than that. Heavier-than-air flight requires 3-axis control. The rudder controls "yaw", or rotation about the vertical axis. (See the article on Aircraft flight control systems.) Loss of any axis of control is a very dangerous reduction in the pilots' ability to fly the aircraft at all. That's what was missing following the catastrophic structural failure of the rudder on that flight. Ikluft (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Hardly a 'routine' incident. Was investigated by Transportation Safety Board of Canada - TSBC Report. Number of recommendations made by TSBC and acted on by, variously, TC, EASA and Airbus. Looking at the notability guidelines for Aviation accidents, we find: unusual circumstances (control surface total detachment is definitely unusual) and "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures". So it seems that two of the criteria suggested are met. --MadScot666 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Safe return without rudder is remarkable itself. NVO (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It looks like the notability lies in the airworthiness directive issued by the French and later other authorites, problem is the article fails to mention it! A few inline citations would help. I would suggest give it a chance to improve as it is written it is not notable! and could be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Meets notability and reliable sources requirements by current refs, which appear to have been added since the AfD nom. A Google search for "Air Transat Flight 961" clearly indicates potential for more refs to be found and added - so the development of the topic appears to have a path forward. When trying to determine if an aviation incident is significant, I think other editors are trying to determine whether it was a routine event within the training of the flight crew. This is similar to Air Transat Flight 236, China Airlines Flight 006 and the Gimli Glider in that passengers experienced injuries and the plane was damaged, but the plane was eventually repaired and returned to service. The photo of the broken/missing rudder in this case is enough to indicate that this event is significantly different. The fact that procedures were changed at the airline and the aircraft manufacturer as a result of it make it significant. Actually, this story is even more outside of the routine due to its origination in Cuba, event in US airspace and return to Cuba. Ikluft (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After making the above comment, I added the TSB Canada accident investigation report as a ref. So notability and reliable sources shouldn't be issues at all for anyone any more. Ikluft (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Sultan (footballer)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youth caps do not confer notability either. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ATHLETE does not trump WP:BIO; which seems to be met by the lengthy article on the Turkey soccer federations page, as well as 21,000 google hits for "Cem Sultan" Galatasaray. Neier (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google hits does not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Metal

There is no such genre as "technical metal". Some seem to be confusing a quality or trait of music with a true genre. As Leon Sword rightly said, any metal genre can be considered "technical": For thrash metal we have Artillery and Coroner; for power metal we have Symphony X or Wuthering Heights; for sludge metal we have Mastodon; for death metal we have Atheist; for progressive metal we have Dream Theater, and so on. Any subgenre can be technical. Technicality is not a genre, it is just a single quality that can apply to any real genre and says nothing about the music other than "It's technical". In addition to this, it is not a "genre" I have seen used or verified anywhere at all (note: it's used as a term, but not a genre). It has no logical reality, and no sources to back it up. A google search for the term turns up 97,500 hits, less than half that of "Battle metal". There is no good reason for this to exist as an article, it is quite simply and quite obviously just something someone has made up, as the lack of any source attests. Prophaniti (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no references to suggest that this is a style in its own right. Many of the g-hits have no bearing on the specific issue of whether "technical metal" is a legitimate genre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the watchtower one claims it's a genre. Nevertheless, one stray reference does not a genre make. I agree this is going a bit overboard and cobbling together a genre out of a few stray uses of the term "technical metal". it would really need a lot more than the current referencing to make a convincing argument that this really is a genre of metal. The nom says it well, this seems to be confusing a "quality or trait of music with a true genre". --Rividian (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another fairy-tale genre that Wikipedia doesn't need. Article was already a re-direct to Progressive metal. Either delete it ror re-direct it and lock it from being re-created. Libs (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is another random adjective + metal. But it should not be deleted. It should be redircted either to Fabrication (metal) or Heavy metal music.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it would come out with much the same result, as what I (and I believe most) are arguing for is that the article and it's (flimsy) content be removed. A redirct to an existing page would still remove what's on the "technical metal" page. Prophaniti (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Like Them

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums and WP:V, in that there is no official confirmation of the album's name, release date or tracklisting. I have been unable to find anything on the artist's official website/MySpace or on the Geffen Records website other than confirmation that an album is being recorded. Tracklisting is speculative and is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Even the sourced entries are dubious - an entry in the ASCAP database is not a reliable indication that a song will definitely appear on an album (original research too?). Proposing deletion without prejudice for recreation in the future following any official announcements. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect top NLT (band). Album fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, I too didn't find any reliable confirmation of the album title, track listing, release date, or the Background section. Redirect since it's a very plausible search term for the band. --Amalthea^Talk 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While a headcount alone would be a no-consensus result, the overarching issue is that the page is completely bereft of references and is more or less original research. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face fault

Basically this article is a list of unreferenced facial expressions and alike noted as found in anime productions. _→AzaToth 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the lists which do nothing to contribute to an understanding of the topic at hand. This is an aspect of anime that I'm sure sources can be found for. JuJube (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge Looking around Category:Anime and manga terminology, There are several pages that should either be merged into this (such as sweat drop) or that it should be merged with (such as Manga Iconography)- there's quite a bit of redundancy. At the very least it needs cleanup and sourcing. but definitely not deletion. For every item that is already noted somewhere else there is another that isn't.Westrim (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone confirm the term actually exists - and that the concept is unique to anime. Even then, it would need to scrap the lists and instead actually provide some scholarly work on the development of the style to prevent the article being a dictionary definition. Doceirias (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I started this article, but that doesn't count for much since I went on to forget its existence for several years. Thanks for the notice, AzaToth. However, calling the subject a list of facial expressions reveals a misunderstanding of the concept. An expression is not a face fault; "face fault" is the established name for the popular convention of expressing shock with an exaggerated cartoony gesture. The TV Tropes article doesn't provide a reliable source but does provide a demonstration. Note the wide variety of face faults in the image.

Not being an expert in the areas of anime, cartoons, visual arts or Japanese weirdness, I don't know where to look for improvements without being bogged down by false positives. Suggestions are appreciated. --Kiz o r 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image is part of the problem - except for one or two short hands specific to Japan, there's nothing in that image that seems specific to anime. Anything done in a cartoonish style would use drawings like that to expression emotions normally. I've rarely heard the term 'face fault', haven't heard it at all for a number of years, and when I did hear it it described much, much more exaggerated images than that illustration has. I'm not sure this is sustainable as anything but a footnote in the style section of either the manga or anime articles, and even then, it is genre specific. It is possible that sources could be found to describe that style, but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own, and I'm extremely unsure that this is the current term for what the article is describing. Doceirias (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Obviously a widely-used anime term, but the lack of reliable sources is a problem. I found this, which is typical of what I found from a Google search, but this needs to have been documented in reliable sources elsewhere to justify an article here. If those sources could be identified and cited, I don't see a problem keeping this.--Michig (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Referenceless OR article about a non-notable term, and the icing on the cake is that according to a quick Google, the article is likely to be wrong, as "face fault" more commonly refers to the anime cliche of "someone says something unbelievably stupid and everyone falls over in shock". The origin of the error, as far as I can tell, is that much of the article was copy-pasted from wikis with no relation to anime. Also, though the article claims that face faults are the anime counterpart to American "wild takes", the Wild takes article is dominated by a "Wild Takes vs Face Faults" comparison section and has been since its creation, casting further doubts on the subject's notability. Gelmax (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced, apparent original research. If someone wants to recreate the article in the future based on verifiable information from reliable sources (should they exist) I have no problem. Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm... Am I the only person that bothered to do more than scan this article? The problem with the article is not that it's OR, it's that much of it is redundant to several pages that are sourced. Wholesale deletion is not the answer, checking to see what has been supported elsewhere (just look on Category:Anime and manga terminology) and sorting out what isn't supported is. Westrim (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article (before my original comment) a lot of it does appear to be original research, whilst a lot of the expressions mentioned do exist most of the descriptive sections are generalisations at best and in some cases just (in my experience) not accurate. That no sources have been provided to me indicated that this is more a personal essay based on someone's personal experience rather than an encycloapedia article based on reliably sourced, verifiable information. An article on the topic may be possible but given the current state of the article and the lack of reliable sources immediately available (there are a few in the category you mention) I don't think there is much to save. Guest9999 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator was Kizor, apparently, so you would have to ask him. I agree that at least some (and probably most) of it can and should be deleted, but in my experience, voting for a deletion gets exactly that, with no checking to see if any material might be more useful, appropriate, or supported in another article. With a merge, someone has to at least look at the material. Westrim (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem IS the OR, because the article may very well be incorrect. A quick Google search is enough to establish that the meaning of the term is not universally accepted, and that the version given in the article doesn't even appear to be the majority view. Heck, even the spelling of the term is far from established, because I just realized that the reason I'd never heard "face fault" before is because I've always seen it spelled "face vault", and that version gets slightly more Google hits than "face fault" although both seem to be fairly widespread. When you've got something this contradictory and poorly established about something that's basically a piece of jargon, it's hard to justify there being an article on it at all, and an unsourced, unverifiable piece of OR is a definite no-no. Something this messy can't be fixed by the discretion of individuals. And could you suggest another page that this material might fall under? It doesn't seem like Wikipedia has a whole lot of other articles about cliched cartoon physical gags. Gelmax (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were discussions about your first few sentences on the article's talk page, so look there. I agree with one threads conclusion that regardless of its pervasiveness, face vault makes no sense, and is more likely to be a cross-language corruption of the chosen term. Also, and to repeat myself, look at the Categories this article is a member of and particularly the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_iconography for similar pages and info. The major problem with your OR argument is that it's looking at the article as a whole, when we should be more concerned with it's contents, at least some of which is verified on other pages. Westrim (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename. As other editors have said, parts of this article are already present and sourced in other articles. What this article contributes is that it has the potential to bring it all into one place. Manga iconography already exists, but manga and anime are not analogous. How about renaming to "anime iconography"? The term has been used in some reliable sources, such as this fps magazine article: [10]. Possibly there are better names. I see nothing wrong with a list as long as sources are added. These symbols are so uniform across anime - surely some sort of guidebook has been published in Japan, perhaps for the use of trainee animators? Esn (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Cenarium ^Talk 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jubals

While this appears to be an earnest attempt at creating an article, I just don't see any reliable source to show notability. Rarity does not prove notability at least in the wiki sense. -- Leivick (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real assertion of notability in the article, from what I can tell they appear to be a local band. There is also complete lack of coverage on them; of 190 Google hits there are none in the first two pages that I can tell are actually about this group ( there does seem to be a group out there called 'the Jubals' that gets some coverage (see this article[11]) but I do not think they are one and the same) and Google news is barren except for 3 articles about a different 70's band. Also, while appearances mean little in terms of notability if you look at the two pictures in the article they certainly appear to be small time. - Icewedge (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to find sources to help establish WP:N notability, I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could find nothing about The Jubals. Delete unless sources turn up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what little coverage found was for a different band from 1971, and they are not the subject of this article since the one up for AFD was formed in 2000. -- Whpq (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Art Show

Non-notable art exhibition, no references to provide notability, this also looks like it was copied from somewhere else. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of references exist to help establish notability as a glance at a Google News archive search shows. I've added a sampling of the media coverage to the article's references, including pieces in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Bangor Daily News, the Los Angeles Daily News, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P. Erik. References now provided seem substantial. tomasz. 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a dictionnary). --JForget 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viddy

Nothing more than a dictionary entry. PROD contested by the author. Ros0709 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. And definition is uncited and dubious. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT and lack of any sourcing/references. Wiw8 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above--ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - popular culture trivia / dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Apparitions at Borg in-Nadur

This article, even if the incidents it mentions were sourced and notable, would have to be rewritten from scratch. We cannot have sentences giving "Marian apparitions" as facts, and the title itself is unacceptable unless one believes in the events described in the first place. Goochelaar (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I disagree with most of the nominator's reasoning, the article lacks independant sources, which I'd expect if any church considered the alledged events notable, let alone reliable. Edward321 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vornado Air Circulation Systems

Another procedural nom. I've just declined a speedy on this. To me, it doesn't currently meet WP:CORP; however, this is an article that's survived for four years (although the early version was not our most informative article), being edited by multiple editors none of whom seem to have had any problem with it. So bringing it over to the Unruly Mob for decision. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can find nothing to indicate notability except some stuff about a petty legal dispute with another company. This is particularly telling. There's lots of companies in the world. Most, including this one, just aren't notable. Reyk _YO! 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a mention in an article on the original Vornado would probably be OK. That's gotta be notable (I have one that still works like a champ). Vornado Realty Trust is in fact a descendant of the original manufacturer.[12] --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Vornado corporate headquaters houses the Antique Fan Collectors Museum (secured, no idea why) supported by the Antique Fan Collectors Association. Ideally this article should provide coverage of the original 40s/50s Vornado company as well as the modern resurrection of the brand and any cultural preservation measures taken by the new company to establish the museum. No, I can't think of anything more boring than reading an article on the preservation, heritage, and modern marketing of household fans. Nonetheless, there's potential in this here stub. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability and provides no sources at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1 by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterstan

Obvious hoax, utterly non-notable, need I say more? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense, and tagged for speedy deletion. Ros0709 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Xenosaga

Article does not meet the WP:GNG because there are no reliable third party sources to verify the article's contents. Non-notable list of video game characters. Previous AFD does not reflect actual policy, and was closed by a non-admin with 2 delete !votes and 3 keeps. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — before I pass judgment, I'd like to say that the first AfD was improperly closed (non-admin) as a keep. When there is no clear consensus (there was 4 keeps and 1 delete) the discussion should not be non-admin closed; instead, let it run its course and let admin decide, even if they decide to keep. Not doing that leaves the door wide open for DRVs and/or subsequent AfD nominations. MuZemike (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia and then delete — no verifiable secondary sources in the article establishing notability (fiction) of anybody. MuZemike (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with MuZemike. Reyk _YO! 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitmate spinoff page to keep the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'minor' clinches it for me - if it was just a list of characters, I'd be inclined to keep, but because it lists minor characters... they're minor for a reason, you know! Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but if it could be moved (and it can) to, say, List of characters in Xenosaga (sans the word "minor"), would you change to "keep?" (in which I would still argue verifiability, etc.) MuZemike (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but that would be manifestly gaming the rules. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion and per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Roi, we have a guideline for speedy keep and I don't see how this situation falls under any of these criteria.--chaser - t 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The decisive consensus in the previous discussion suggests that a renomination seems unwarranted. As it closed as a clear keep, efforts should instead be focused on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant coverage in sources which are independent and neither in-universe nor game guides. Consensus can change, and has, from the previous AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is significant enough for Wikipedia. The consensus has not changed, just because a few want to delete here does not change the reality that a much larger of editors and readers who worked on and come here for this content believe it should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This silent majority of yours really must be pretty silent, what with them repeatedly failing to express their opinions in any appropriate venue which might result in our guidelines being changed. Furthermore, it is illogical to argue that an inappropriately early close after five comments on the previous AfD was "clear consensus", while increased participation here is apparently an insignificant minority. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're too busy writing articles. If you think only five comments in AfD is not sufficient consensus to keep, then all those AfDs with five comments for deletion apparently do not reflect consensus either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say that. What I said was that it was illogical to declare "clear consensus" based on three "keep" comments but to declare this discussion as non-representative. I'm happy that the first AfD showed consensus, if prematurely; I think consensus has now changed, what with some of the project having gotten serious about application of WP:N. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is that this article is being called into question based on being "game guide", but as the article indicates, these characters do not solely appear in games, but also in manga and anime. Of the millions of video game characters, only so many have also appeared in other works if fiction. That is where I see the notability here, i.e. that despite being called "minor" in the article's title, they are not strictly video game characters. So, my thought is that we can use the numerous published game guides linked to above to serve as reliable primary sources, but also reviews of not just the games but also of the anime and manga for secondary source coverage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, consensus was once clear on this article. It was the product of a now-obsolete compromise, since found unworkable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites no sources and the lead should give a clue as to the likely notability of the subject. there is some value in list articles as they both limit extraneous article creation and may (with notable elements) help readers navigate a subject. However, I feel that need is being solved by the "major" characters list. In this case, this list is a magnet for original research, cruft and functionally unverifiable claims (without playing a game all the way through). I like AMiB's "walled garden" analogy. The series generates (just like a lot of modern game fiction) a staggering amount of detail, very little of it notable in a real-world sense. There is no need for an encyclopedia, even one as inclusive as wikipedia, to include all or even most of the parochial material generated by the game manufacturers. Also, the article cites no independent sources (or any) in order to assert notability per the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Walled garden" is a term from the meatball wiki. A copy of the original; not sure where the original was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have expanded the lead to demonstrate that that this obviously specialized encyclopedic article does indeed meet our notability guidelines. Also, the artucle could easily be merged with an article on Xenosaga characters, as doing searches of individual characters reveals that secondary source articles have in fact covered various characters in semi-list fashion in such articles as this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An artifact of the old WP:FANCRUFT guideline, which advised handling major characters in the main article, and minor characters in a spinoff article (as had been done with an Atlas Shrugged compromise at the time). We don't do this any more; current practice is to cover the characters in the main article, and just omit excessive plot detail. The broader consensus changed.
Now, we have a dumping ground for the characters who didn't merit mention in the (already huge) major characters list. These are characters with minor roles, often completely omitted for lack of importance from the main plot summaries. We don't need many, many articles all recapping different details of the Xenosaga series' plot, that's just excessive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Despite the positive statement above, no way has ever really achieved permanent consensus--the nearest and in my opinion the best was to giving major characters individual articles, and treating the minor ones in a combination article. Experience has shown that condensing this all into the main article, usually results in condensing the material to a useless extent, at which point people try to omit it entirely. Actually for any complex fiction presenting the story in terms of the individual characters is usually a clearer way than by going step by step through the plot, and character articles consequently should be encouraged as a complementary method, more useful to those unfamiliar with the fiction. There will be some duplication with the main article, which, in proper summary style, will contain a brief summary. How important this particular fiction is, and what depth of coverage is consequently appropriate for the characters, I leave to the talk pages.16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
But we have articles for the characters important enough to mention. Multiple articles. This is the leftovers, characters so minor that they really aren't worth mentioning anywhere more relevant. You're saying, "Well, we'll leave it to the talk pages to decide which characters are important enough to mention," but that discussion has already been had: all of the characters important enough to mention are mentioned in other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously others believe that these characters are also important enough to mention. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that we already have individual articles for most of the PCs, as well as, not one, but two other lists of characters. The information here is too fragmented and granular to comfortably fit anywhere else, and so the resulting list is, as described by AMiB, a dumping ground. Nifboy (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to second Father Goose from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media. Some of these character AfDs I can actually sort of see where editors are coming frome; however, let us be serious here. A previous discussion closed as "keep," not "no consensus." And despite that the article title says "minor", these characters appeared not just in video games, but manga and anime. They are also covered in reviews (secondary sources) and published strategy guides (reliable primary sources). Thus, they are notable and verifiable by any common sense standard. Obviously editors and readers believe the article suitable for our project and are willing to continue improving it. I would be far more willing to accept the deletion rationales for article slike Marneus Calgar, where the characters does not appear in games, manga, and anime, and can be found on Google books or Google news searches if valid lists of characters that do appear in mutiple mainstream works of fiction and for which can clearly be verified were not also nominated. It is time we come to our senses and actually compromise on these things. Something like this articles unequivocally is within our legitimate scope of coverage, even if merged and redirected elsewhere. If we can agree on that, then I can agree to concede on ones like the aforementioned Marneus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a tit-for-tat process. An element of trade might be appropriate in the spirit of cooperative editing had you any particular interest in the subject beyond increasing your keep tally, but there's no evidence of that. Furthermore, given your record it is likely that you would use any keep as precedent for future AfDs regardless of how the article were kept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This particular nomination and rationales for deletion are more appropriate for April Fools Day; given your record, it is likely that you would use any delete as precedent for future AfDs regardless of how the articles were deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said. This was kept with a keep consensus because it was the result of a now-obsolete compromise. Editing practices have since changed in the intervening year. Also, knock this "Copy-paste what you say but reversing the names" nonsense right off, it's not clever or germane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that characters who appear in games, manga, and anime are not somehow worthy enough for a merge and redirect or something as I am just not seeing a persuasively urgent need to redlink this article altogether. Also, knock this editing other people's posts nonsense off. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? You've said that about five times now. You just repeated yourself, both with your first comment and with this comment, not having addressed anything anyone's really said. The entirety of your argument seems to be "Well, I don't really like current editing practices, and I'm sure lots of people agree with me and aren't speaking up!"

Do not add gigantic inline images to AFDs. You've been warned, multiple times, about disrupting AFDs in various ways. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As have you and as usual you are once again disrupting an AfD I participate in. Please approach these discussions maturely. If you do not want to discuss with me in a serious fashion, then why bother? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of disrupting AFD by removing a giant trout, then still not addressing "Editing practices have changed" and "Nobody wants this merged because it was the content so useless it was DEmerged" and "There's nothing save very specific plot summary one can say about these characters." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am accusing you because your accusation against me is ridiculous given as far as I can tell you did not revert and warn someone else who did it in another discussion we both participated in. The double standard is what I find disruptive. I would not have added such an image if someone else had not done so, not be harangued for doing so, and the discussion ended up not closing as delete. For it to all of a sudden be the wrong approach when I do it is what baffles me. For once I thought maybe I will attempt what worked for someone else instead and yet again, I get more assumptions of bad faith. Maybe nobody wants it merged, but editors who created and worked on the article obviously want it kept. What is effective and relevant from this article is that it covers characters who appeared in mutiple forms of fiction. The individual entries on this list note how the characters appeared in these different works of fiction and provides out of universe comments about who voiced them for example. Rather than expecting readers to surf through all the articles on the specific works of fiction that these characters appeared in, it is all presented in a coherent and organized fashion right in this list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we need an entire article devoted to characters so minor they don't merit mention in the plot summaries of those works because? Nevermind that there's nothing referenced to say about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing concern I strongly believe to be fixable. One can argue we do not "need" any given article, but as I outlined above, I do see a few purposes that this article serves for our readers. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up the confusion, because you're arguing about a TROUT for chrissakes, I originally removed it because I was under the impression it was aimed in my direction, and I am not in Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Nifboy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was aimed at the nomination and arguments to delete in general, which is why it wasn't made as a reply to any specific editor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proper use of a wet trout is in response to especially egregious lapses in judgment, not things which you yourself have said you "can actually sort of see where editors are coming frome" [sic]. Nifboy (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is one that I believe to be an especially egregious lapse in judgment. Some of the Warhammer ones are those that I said I can actually sort of see where editors are coming from. I do not see any valid reasons to redlink here, however, and actually see value in the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop you from appearing uncivil to those who disagree with your assessment, including the troutees. Nifboy (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find trying to delete an article that was already closed as keep discourteous if not less than civil to those who argued the first time around and who have worked on it since. I also find going on and on about the fish unproductive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. We delete articles that are unsourceable all the time, and indeed it is a part of our guidelines at WP:AFD and WP:NOTABILITY. An article that survives an AFD can still be nominated for deletion if the policies or guidelines have not been met. It is not incivil, discourteous, or disruptive. On the other hand, please don't misuse speedy keep when the situation does not meet that guideline. Please familiarize yourself with that guideline for future reference. Randomran (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Since these characters have appeared in a variety of different media it is reasonable to keep them. Moreover, the previous AfD was a clear keep (whether or not it should have been a non-admin close, the consensus in that AfD is clear). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them don't appear in a variety of different media. About half of this article is background or secondary characters in side-story works, and the rest are characters with no dialogue (animals, historical people from the backstory) or from flashbacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this list doesn't help at all to understand or state the notability of Xenosaga, and contains nothing notable. It's just a lot of non-notable plot summary and very very minor characters. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN aside, it expands on our understanding and notability of Xenosaga by indicating the wealth of characters that have appeared in mutiple games, anime, and mange. It is also out of universe information on who voiced the characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with reference to existing policy about how Wiki is not paper etc, this article does not prove the notability of its subjects. doktorb _words^deeds 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does in that they appear in multiple different kinds of works of fiction, which only a handful of the millions of fictional characters do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I point you to the following lines in the opening part of the article - "nor does it feature playable characters. Nevertheless, a number of these characters also appear in anime and manga". So the article name says "minor characters", and the article copy says the characters are non-playable, whilst "a number" also appear in other means. Now I take from all this, that minor=non-notable, non-playable means the characters have no notable role within the game, and "a number" can mean anything from 1 to 100, it's all but meaningless. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The number that appear in other medeia are notable and verifiable. So long as editors are working on the article, readers come here for it, and the article is not outright nonsense, then there is no real reason why a paperless encyclopedia should not cover it. Notability is nothing more than "I like it" or "I don't like it," i.e. it is subjective and as such a whole category of editors oppose using it as a basis for inclusion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is neither paper nor a depository for exhuastive lists of trivia. This collection of minor (as it says itself) non-playable (ditto) characters from which only "a number" have features elsewhere falls between two stools. I cannot see this article being rescued. There may be other places for this article but it should not be here doktorb _words^deeds 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Out of universe material that is verifiable and encyclopedic such as this article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concern Why is this article, apart from a few voice actor identifications, entirely in-universe information? Where's the critical commentary, the development notes, the toy sales figures? How do these characters serve the narrative? Are some of these characters (e.g. Joaquin) anything more than stock characters (e.g. impulsive kid who gets into trouble)? I can see why some editors' fancruft senses are tingling. Even ducking the notability issue by treating the article as a subpage, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT remains a likely problem. Characters in Hamlet is a good model: the least significant characters are grouped together in short sentences for completeness. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that these characters are non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As already indicated there is out of universe detail, they have real-world significance, WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when there is significant coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive undue weight given to these minor characters in the form of superfluous plot summary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorbuk, Sephiroth BCR, and Doctorfluffy. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment*** WP:POINT doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, is plot repetition, and should not have an article on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete because no transwiki target was provided. May be restored for transwiki on request. Sandstein 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Tekken characters

Non-notable list of minor video game characters. Does not meet WP:GNG because there are no reliable third party sources to verify any of this article's contents. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. Relevant information (if there is any) should be in the game articles only. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia and then delete — no verifiable secondary sources in the article establishing notability (fiction) of anybody. Virtually the same argument I have made with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga (2nd nomination). MuZemike (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per MuZemike. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crusader enemies

Non-notable list of video game enemies. Does not meet WP:GNG because there are no reliable third party sources to verify any of this article's contents. Existing sources are all official guides, and thus non-independent, and cannot meet the GNG's requirements. Also violates the WP:VGSCOPE guideline that these kinds of lists are generally unnecessary to provide a WP:CONCISEPLOT of the game, and thus violate what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide, and this is simply game cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — even though there are sources (albeit none of them are cited, so hopefully there are no copyvio issues present), this seems to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MuZemike (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification -- there are sources, but they're not independent, and do not meet the requirements of WP:PROVEIT or WP:GNG. All four are official information that has been commissioned by the game publisher. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. No assertion of notability via significant coverage in sources independent of the topic. Content is WP:NOT#GUIDE material. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Challenge (video game)

Tagged as WP:OR since June and never fixed. No independent sources cited. Needs to be fixed or gone per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ...You are aware that the release date of the game is before the scheduled end of this AfD? --Kiz o r 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to think pretty much every released-in-stores Playstation 3 game is notable. There's certainly no shortage of professional reviews, as Metacritic shows. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I agree with Starblind that pretty much any PS3 game is going to be notable and have enough reliable material for a stub at minimum. — brighterorange (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — when this game gets released, we will surely have plenty of verifiable, third-party sources present. Hence, there is no crystalballery present; the WP:OR should go away provided BOLD editors work on this article. MuZemike (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those policies do nto include exceptions for things that will one day be sourceable. Feel free to add sources that exist right now. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the game is coming out in 3 days time. It's better here to ignore all rules and keep the article around as opposed to deleting the article and then recreating it. MuZemike (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable, if sourcing is an issue then tag the article as such. Someone another 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unsourced articles need sourcing / cleanup. If you cannot do that, put on a tag rather than nominate for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eck Louvell

Fake. Only Ghit is Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources or evidence of notability. Wiw8 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax, but I can't find any ghit that isn't WP, one of the 'sources' provided doesn't actually refer to the phrase, and the other doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. --Ged UK (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the link [13] seems to make clear that this article is promotional in nature. JJL (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm Albert Nox and the article is not promotional at all in nature - it is a new style of glamour photography - that even though Wylie Beckert is "all in deletion for" - she inspires my artwork and I didn't know that I had to have permission for that - It is not a hoax, it is new and maybe it doesn't have enough credibility yet. I will post it again later if that possible. AlbertNox —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertNoxx (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it has attained notability to the tune of multiple secondary sources writing about it, then perhaps. Until then, no. JuJube (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A stub about the company might be reasonable, as noted. Black Kite 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End (video game)

Article with no independent sources about a game that will be released Real Soon Now by a redlinked company. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT a directory of video games, still less upcoming ones of no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — even though Gamasutra had an interview with the head of Faramix, I have still yet to see anything besides primary sources that would pass WP:V about this game. Hence, crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion one way or the other, but a stub on the aforementioned redlinked company, Faramix Enterprises, might have better promise. Nifboy (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation (video game)

An unreleased game from a redlinked manufacturer with no credible independent sources. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT a directory of video games that will be out Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No verifiable, third-party sources establishing any spot of notability (the sources directly from their site does not quailify). In addition, more crystalballery. Why do people insist that Wikipedia is supposed to be a skeletal database website like Gamespot and IGN? MuZemike (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, SkyWalker has proven me wrong at least about GameSpot. Dizzamn!!! I must change to keep per sources found. MuZemike (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — The game is announced see here, [14], here, here, here and here. There is enough coverage for the game. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please source the article. Right now it does not comply with core policies. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gamespot source alone is good enough for me. I've added it to the article. --Ged UK (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is sourced now and needed sourcing in the first place, not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near future in video gaming

A list of mostly uncited speculative "near future" releases in an arbitrarily chosen entertainment genre. I don't think 2010 is "near future", and there does not appear to be any reliable independent definition of what constitutes near future, so this is just a gathering ground for WP:CRYSTAL. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of upcoming video games". It needs to be reliably sourced and maintained. Each game should have been announced by a reliable, third-party publication, and removed from the list if it has not. I don't think it should be deleted; it just needs more references, a good lead section, and someone to keep out speculation. SunDragon34 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: List of unreleased games in development, or something like that. This is a discriminate list. It's not WP:CRYSTAL so much as documenting a current event. For example, list of ongoing conflicts. This article can be verified. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as Randorman and SunDragon34 suggested. It definitely is discriminate. However, whoever edits this must be aware that unverified future games on that list can be a la carte removed due to WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Randomran and Sundragon. --Hazillow (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got this idea from Near future in film which was nominated for deletion and later the page was moved to 2010s in film. I have the same plan for this article to move to 2010s in video gaming when December 2008 arrives. So that 2009 games can be moved to 2009 in video gaming. I got so many good ideas from such articles. Also it is a great place to list so many games which has not released or the release date further. Instead of searching for every game in category which is a tough job. This article makes job easier. Iam doing my best to cite each of them. Most of them have articles so the information can be seen there.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename 'Near future' is such a wish-washy and vague terms (I for one don't consider 2010 to be the near future!), and not one that people are likely to look for. The content is fine; if the games are notable/reliable/verifiable enough for their own article, then the list can't really not be as well. Split to 'List of upcoming video games' as suggested earlier. --Ged UK (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly suitable list that allows navigation of many already existing articles. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica grist

Another procedural nomination. I've declined a {{prod}} on this (Despite minor involvement in many media activities the subject does not seem to have achieved true notability in any particular area. Google has little on her. The article is unreferenced and has a promotional tone.) as I think there is enough there to suggest potential notability and possibly warrant the article being cleaned up and sourced rather than deleted. All that said, I was genuinely surprised at how few hits a Google search turned up, as she does pass the "I've heard of her" test (and this is spectacularly not my field). Personally, although I'm bringing this to AfD to get a wider consensus, I think there is enough here that if it can be sourced, I vote to keep. – iride scent 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless adequate sources come to light before end of nomination. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I put the Prod on because I wasn't sure that any one thing that was being claimed provided sufficient notability for an article. There might be more notability than the article says but Google didn't provide it and I have not heard of her. This could be a case of somebody just on the brink of becoming notable but, as it stands, the article still feels like a delete to me. A few good references would make all the difference. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs massive cleanup and is promotional in tone, but these could be fixed. The fatal problem is the total lack of reliable sources. A google search for this person yields a great many facebooky and myspacey type things- enough to verify she exists- but no reliable secondary sources which we need to establish notability. Reyk _YO!

Speedy delete lower case surname is prima facie evidence of non-notability Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, Geogre's Law. Reyk _YO! 03:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Kuch Samaan

Non-notable article about a song, also article not referenced. Macy 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wow, what a mess. This article is only about 50% English, has no references, and those parts of it I can understand are promotional in tone. I did a cursory Google search and it appears that it might be possible to properly source it, but I think this article is such a mess that it's best to tear it down and start over. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mspraveen (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kanye

Contested prod, previously deleted by prod so G4 doesn't apply. This article is devoid of reliable sources and fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL: no release date or track listing; title isn't even verified. Cliff smith ^talk 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Two lines, no confirmed facts, no refs = no justification. Ka renjc 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs, no verifiability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Kanye West album would probably be notable enough to get away with a 'Kanye West's second album' and then a rename as per Hammer's Law, but this is so vague, unsourced and unverifiable that it has to be a delete for now. Ged UK (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs (non-admin closure). --Amalthea^Talk 11:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Monday

Source has Sparks saying she wants this to be the next single, not that it will be. No reliable source to say this will be the next single makes this fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album until confirmed. If it is confirmed.... SKS2K6 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previously stated reasons Asher196 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect supposedly the label does not want this to be the fourth single, Jordin is the one that wants it. That doesn't mean it's confirmed. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Zero No contributions to the AfD. No reliable sources to demonstrate notability or make possible an encyclopaedic article. Deleting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hunt

American Idol (season 6) semi-finalist who has two independent released albums that fails WP:Music. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Champion

This article is already covered by WWE Intercontinental Championship and List of current WWE champions. This is most likely a snow speedy delete. S_RX 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't know if it meets any speedy criteria, but it certainly isn't a necessary article. Like the nom said, its info is covered easily in other articles. Although, a possible re-direct after deletion might be in order, since that does seem like a plausible enough search term. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WWE Intercontinental Championship. I've a feeling that there are other intercontinental championships/belts (boxing perhaps?) so a merge may be better than a redirect. Ged UK (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merging would leave an inappropriate redirect, and it's already covered. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons that SRX stated. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per iMatthew SuperSilver901 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't a redirect just been quicker? Otherwise Delete Darrenhusted (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled David Cook Album

Forthcoming album has no confirmed name, release date or track listing that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Aspects (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smash this with the WP:HAMMER: fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, as per nom. Cliff smith ^talk 20:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too little info, and not notable enough to get away with such little info. Fail of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Ged UK (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's hammertime. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous comments. At least wait until the album has a name. ↔NMajdan•talk 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland at the 1948 Summer Olympics

Non-notable, even according to the info in article; basically just a statment that they DID compete, and a few info boxes. All the info can be found elsewhere on wiki. Vrefron (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to re-submit. This could and should be a full, robust article. I'm willing to wait for editors to fill in the blanks on this highly notable subject. Participation in the olympics is, in my opinion, the highest order of amatuer sports according to WP:ATHLETE. Notability is not a question. Content is the question, and I don't like to delete an article for lack of content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - articles shouldn't be deleted for lack of content, and this article has the potential to be reasonable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be no question about notability (if they competed, they're notable), just about content. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Participating in the Olympics is obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lack of content and lack of notability are very different. Why is Iceland's participation in the 1948 Olympics any less notable than that of the United States? Or less notable than at the current Olympics? It isn't, so instead of trying to delete articles for which a wealth of verifiable information obviously exists (see the 1948 Olympic report linked to from that page), why not use that time and effort to improve and expand the article? --Canley (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is part of a series of articles about each competing country at each Olympics. I have started to add some actual information to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that an article like this on a subject that took part in a larger event is not inherently notable. If there had been some controversy surrounding someone on their team, they had won any medals, or even included an athlete that was notable themselves, I'd agree with it's inclusion. That being said, I'm obviously on the wrong end of the consesus. If someone can withdraw this nomination or tell me how(or even better, link me the page that shows me how), I'd be happy to withdraw it. Vrefron (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I suppose I'd be fairly intereted if I lived in Reykjavík. Now how do I withdraw this nomination? Vrefron (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetotrama

Article is original research with no refs or secondary sources, and hence no WP:Verifiability. If covered in medical research it would be OK, but not as a personal reminiscence. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOR and the only way to confirm might violate WP:COS. Vrefron (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article if you can call it that simply states one persons observations after an accident, with some other info. It is definitely falls under WP:NOR. SOL Basic 01:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research in the extreme:the personal trauma of the author of the article in an accident with an eraser for recording tape! Not something in the medical textbooks or journals. Wikipedia is not a site to write about our incidents in life and our analyses and hypotheses of them.Edison2 (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 23:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some cites have been given, but they do not relate to trauma: see my comments on the talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites don't mention it for the most part, and the whole thing is WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2008#District_50. Merge appropriate info to that article. Black Kite 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Leibham

Unnotable congressional candidate. He isn't currently a legislator, but an attorney. None of the sources actually discuss him in detail, with most being general campaign info, with only the gas thing being about him and certainly not enough to meet WP:BIO. Article is mostly a promo piece created by his campaign office. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Clear Delete~~ Redirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN -- candidates alone are not notable. RayAYang (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears a redirect target has been proposed in lieu of straightforward deletion. RayAYang (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:BIO guidelines for politicians do not mandate that the article address a sitting legislator as Collectonian asserts; in fact, they expressely allow for articles pertaining to "candidate[s] for political office" so long as they meet the notability criterion of ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Let's parse out the criterion as it applies to this article:

"Significant coverage" means that the "sources address the subject directly in detail." First, the subject of this article is not solely Nick Leibham, the person, but also his candidacy. The latter is addressed in every source but for the first reference which links to a biographical page relating to Cheryl Ede. Secondly though, Leibham's person is directly addressed as follows:

From the second reference: "This year he is being challenged by Democrat Nick Leibham, 34, an attorney and former prosecutor."

Leibham showed $267,000 cash on hand."

From the seventh: "Congressional candidate Nick Leibham was promoting his campaign at a gas station in the Encinitas..."

From the eighth: "Nick Leibham, Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives in California’s 50th District"

From the ninth: "Democratic nominee for the 50th Congressional District, Nick Leibham is rolling back the price of gas in North County."

From the eleventh: "...and Leibham, the preppy lawyer who lives in Rancho Santa Fe..." "the young “change” candidate down the ticket."

All the sources cited would be considered "reliable" inasmuch as they are, save for the external link to Leibham's campaign website, secondary and independent, many of them stemming from established political blogs; the Union Tribune, San Diego's newspaper of record; the Coast Times; KPBS; and local news agencies. User:newmediasinecure (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Greenflea3000]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:POLITICIAN to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008#District 50, merging at editor's discretion. WP:RS attention comes from running for office. If there's enough material to create a separate 50th district race article, we can merge it there. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for a page like this one; other congressional challengers, democrats and republicans, have stand-alone articles: Charles Brown (California),Dennis Shulman, Jim Ogonowski; In fact an entire category exists titled United States House of Representatives elections Candidates Newmediasinecure (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per • Gene93k - If the candidate is not notable outside of the race, redirect to the race. If the subject gained notariety from his work as a prosecutor and the assertions can be sourced, he very well could be notable. Shulman and Ognowski appear to be non notable as well and should also be redirected to the appropriate articles. Charlie Brown is a very notable cartoon character and should have an article. Montco (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect In terms of notability, I think this person fails on many levels. I started with Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, and NY Times and found no results in searches on Nick Leibham. Then surprisingly for a California candidate, I found nothing in a SF Chronicle search. At the current stage of his political career, he is non-notable. Should he lose in an uneventful contest, he would remain so. Thus, unless the campaign becomes controversial or this person wins, I would suggest moving this information to a section of a larger article. The information was created by a less experienced WPian and probably suffers. Solving COI and POV issues would still leave us with an article that has some problems. I would not mind if this person were independently notable on the international level. I can not find his name mentioned in anything that is considered a national publication (although I have not checked the LA Times because they only make excerpts public). The best bet to establish notability would be if he has been involved in any notable cases as a prosecutor. Has he ever been granted certiorari? Has he been involved in any notable cases?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MaintainTonyTheTiger: compared to you, I may be a wiki neophyte, but it seems to me you engineer two criteria for notability in your comment above which do not exist. You imply that the secondary sources ought to be nationally circulating newspapers, but while wikipedia:RS particularly welcomes sources from the "high quality end of the market," like the Post, it only mandates that they be reliable, published and emanate from a third party. Moreover, the Union Tribune is hardly a rag, with a readership of 756,284. And again, the criterion for notability is significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, not whether the subject has been granted cert, which, if left unpublished, would not bolster notability at all. In this discussion, let's stick to the parameters wiki gave us, not invent new ones. Newmediasinecure (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize, if I gave the impression that whether the article is kept depends on your experience at WP. I am, however, going to write this response based on my experience with creating WP:GAs on WP. I can tell you by experience where the line is drawn on notability. Go to Talk:Toni Preckwinkle. Look at the second deletion and the deletion review discussions in the article history template. The "letter of the law", is that the biography subject needs to be the subject of a third party WP:RS. I am not sure if that is the "spirit of the law". However, the "substance of the law" is that a person must be mentioned in non-local, significant WP:RSs. Look at the responses in those discussions. The deleted articles were articles similar to what you have created. I had to find four or five different important non-local sources to establish that she is notable on the international scale. I do not think that your candidate need to be the subject of an article like say Tory Burch in the Vanity Fair that provides a great deal of the subject. I would expect that if he is elected, you will be able to cite the Post, LA Times and SF Chronicle and establish notability based on his political career. I am saying that the evidence you have presented about his political career to date is not internationally notable. If his prosecutor career is notable you can argue based on that. If there are LA Times or W Post articles to add you may attempt reargue based on those. It is possible to present a very extensive article mostly on local publications as with Preckwinkle or in a more extreme example see Rob Pelinka. However, he has contributory notability from his athletic/academic past. If he has done something like win the Walter Byers Award that would cause one to say "If he has done anything subsequently that is halfway notable he is notable" then that would be different. In fact, if your guy had won that award on top of the exact article you are presenting I would vote to keep. I do not support a new standard for political candidates in their first notable role whereby all candidates are WP:N. That is just not the way things are at WP. You have to establish notability elsewhere in the career. I apologize that I can not support without further notability established. Again, I encourage you to review the discussions at Preckwinkle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Third Opinion' What you refer to as the "substance of the law" is really your own interpretation of WP:N; and that interpretation hinges upon your defining reliable sources as those that are 'non-local' and 'significant'. Yet, this verbiage is completely absent from WP:RS; again, a source need only be published, reliable, and from a third party to qualify. You could make the argument that LOCAL publications that happen to enjoy wider readership like the NY Times and Washington Post, are more reliable, but you must also then be prepared to insinuate that the Union Tribune does not fact check or scrutinize its own writing, to which reliability is directly related perWP:RS. If anything, it is you who are unwittingly [perhaps] establishing a new standard, where only articles containing references to "national" publications which you deem "significant" are considered GA's. I do not support that. But my normative judgment aside (where it belongs), if that really were the standard and we accepted the publications you listed as a "significant" canon, many actors on the local stage, e.g. Councilwomen Donna Frye and Toni Atkins, State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, would be considered non-notable. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders would be too were it not for a single reference to the LA Times; but, what if I didn't give the LA times as much credence as you did, because its non-local readership was smaller than say, the NY Times? You can see the trouble with deferring to your reliability standard instead of the one explicitly put out by WP in WP:RS. The linked articles above also demonstrate that a subject needn't be internationally renowned to fulfill WP's notability criterion, the letter of which mentions nothing of that sort. Lastly, to your argument that political candidates without notable careers which predate their candidacy cannot be notable: From WP:Politician: "...an unelected candidate for political office... can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;'" notice it does NOT say that the aspect of the subject's life being significantly covered need be his career prior to entering politics nor anything but his candidacy. So, it appears we've reached an impasse here; at the point when you resort to tautologies ("that's just not the way things are at WP") and direct me to a discussion that is predominantly between you, the author, and no third party editor, about an article whose most serious problems relate to POV, we need another opinion. Best, Newmediasinecure (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I admire your persistence. You make strong arguements, which are hard to disagree with. Here is why each of the other articles pass notability (IMO): Donna Frye (extremely interesting election controversy), Toni Atkins (somewhat interesting controversy that led to her assuming office), Dennis Hollingsworth (does not and would not pass as written, but is lucky not to have been nominated, would pass with rewrite based on NY Times), Jim Ogonowski (fails for the reasons I have been discussing), Dennis Shulman (notable for handicap and notable source references), Jerry Sanders (needs rewrite, but would pass with the few U.S. News, a Time and a Newsweek ref that I have found) and Charles Brown (California) (mentions in notable WP:RS make him notable, see my AFD discussion comment). I guess I am saying the way notability works on WP is that the extensive coverage could come from a local source, but the arbiter of whether the person is notable is the popular media. I think you will find consistent precedent at AFD for people who are mentioned in the popular press as being notable and those who aren't as not being so. I am sort of taking on the role of Bearer of Bad news for your guy and I hate that I have to do so. All I can really say is watch for references in the Post, LA Times, NY Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News, and maybe SF Chronicle. All the other votes to redirect are probably based on the logic I am taking the time to explain to you. It is not up to you or I to determine who is notable. If there is no mention of him outside of San Diego, he is not going to pass as notable for this international audience. I don't know what else to tell you. This is how it works. The policies probably need to be tweeked to better reflect the substance of the law here, but I am explaining how things really work the best way I know how. I apologize that it does not help save this biographical subject as a stand alone article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is just a candidate, not notable outside of that so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Darren: WP:Politician: "...an unelected candidate for political office... can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;'" notice it does NOT say that the aspect of the subject's life being significantly covered need be his career prior to entering politics nor anything but his candidacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmediasinecure (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what politician says, remove all the politic references and all you have is a lawyer, not notable. If you want I can strip the article down to its bones to show you what that would look like. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the part about People notable only for one event. Leibham's RS attention comes from running for office and is about his run for office. The greater issue here is can we make a substantive biography of this person based on the reliable sources available? The sources evident are insufficient and Leibham doesn't yet qualify for the WP:POLITICIAN common sense exception for office holders. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I've added to the article, Nick Leibham's campaign has been identified by the Democratic Party as one of the top 20 "emerging races" in the United States. That isn't just another election. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That establishes that the race is interesting. Leibham may have potential but notability should not be speculative. Until and unless he is elected in November, he is known for one event. Cover that event. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying we should make a page called Nick Liebham's Congressional Run, 2008 instead? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite. Option 1: Redirect/merge as recommended above to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008#District 50 and expand on the race there. Option 2: Spin out and merge to a neutral California's 50th congressional district election, 2008 if there is enough notable material to justify a stand-alone article. If this is a race to watch, sufficient content should be no problem. • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per Gene93k's option 1 - I believe it's the race that is notable and not much is can be verified about the candidate beyond the candidacy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lund Calling

Non-notable CD, featuring non-notable bands. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are notable bands, especially Damn and Langhorns, whose songs are heard in over 30 films and TV shows. Pop music is one of Sweden's top exports. Many indie rock fans in the USA, England and Japan are especially interested in music from Sweden. (Randyfx (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep. We have articles on Damn (band) and The Langhorns, though they could use some spicing up for notablity. No articles on the other bands. Our article on The Mutts seems to be about a different band. Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are notable bands, especially Damn and Langhorns, whose songs are heard in over 30 films and TV shows. Pop music is one of Sweden's top exports. Many indie rock fans in the USA, England and Japan are especially interested in music from Sweden. (Randyfx (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I think you already said that. Corvus cornix_talk 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album contains notable bands, as per WP:Music. --Ged UK (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (I'm a free agent, too!) NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander blanding

Non-notable sports player - a google search for "Alexander blanding" "Free agent" gives no results. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. My search only turned up a minor college roster.justinfr (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Halifax Public Libraries. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax North Memorial Library

This speedied article was returned identically within minutes of deletion. There is no notability either asserted or present, no reliable sources, no verifiability and apparently no intention to work within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for any sources? Not everyone understands our policies right off the bat, just because someone didn't know to cite sources doesn't mean they don't exist, note that an effort is made to cite sources, albeit they all seem to be published by the library. Your nomination just seems to find fault with the article for not being very good yet, rather than provide any evidence it couldn't be improved, the latter being the actual criteria for deletion. At any rate, it looks like a copyvio and I can't find any decent sources... but your nomination seemed a bit rude and off-base, even if this is probably an article that should be deleted. --Rividian (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for sharing your opinions. If you have one that's relevant to the topic of the AfD, please feel free to contribute it. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why this level of rudeness and snark is called for. My comment had everything to do with this AFD. --Rividian (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having read the article, there is nothing notable here -- it is just another branch library with the normal services being offered. And adding sources is not going to make it notable. It could simply be a line a two under some main article on the Halifax Public Library System. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Halifax Public Libraries exists so this page could just redirect there. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Public Libraries. A branch library does not have inherent notability. Edison2 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No indication of why this particular branch is notable. Ged UK (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rd as above Notability is not inherited benjicharlton (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jcbbib

Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software that creates bibliographies. Fails WP:Notability (software). TN‑X-Man 18:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick Google query shows that the most relevant entry is actually the Wikipedia article AVand ^talk _contribs 18:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not yet have the authorization to add much more content to the article, that problem should be resolved by Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismith3 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not quite sure what will happen on Monday with regards to authorisation, but I can't see what could make any difference to this. A Gsearch gets about 12 returns, most of which are from this site. The rest appear to have nothing to do with the product in question. No assertion of notability, no sources for verifiability (either provided or found). --Ged UK (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this software is notable; seems to be an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Just about scrapes into WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Bites God

Fails WP:Band & WP:N guidelines. Per article, they are unsigned. -- Endless dan 18:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree that they fail WP:BAND and WP:N. Reyk _YO! 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BAND, gsearching pulls up quite a few links, but not to any site that is reliable. --Ged UK (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be a promotional exercise to promote a non-notable band.--Lester 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep With reference to WP:BAND, these three articles, all in reliable secondary sources, appear to go at least part-way to meeting criteria #1. Google News confirms they have played in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney, as well as the Edinburgh Festival, which would appear to provide claims regarding criteria #4. Murtoa (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessments, and as such I have added some more "reliable" sources to Man Bites God's wikipedia page in the hope that you will reconsider this deletion. --Newmillennium (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment No idea why Newmillennium added 'kelly clarkson' to my comment, I've removed it. --Ged UK (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed opinion with addition of new sources. Appears to now meet criterion 4 around touring and possibly criterion 10 around performing theme tune for TV show. --Ged UK (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources in major newspapers located by User:Murtoa, band meets the WP:N criteria due to coverage in reliable third-party sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Payan

Unable to verify any of this article. No sources provided, no sources found. Article (and numerous others related to it) are COI creations. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax to me. For instance: Camp Rock 2 is still shooting, I think, but I don't see her name associated with it anywhere. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing I found on the internet to indicate any truth to the content of this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to link her with the shows listed in the intro. SOL Basic 01:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (KaBlam!)

Yes, they're the main characters of KaBlam!, but I can't seem to find any reliable sources whatsoever regarding either of the characters. Most of this is just original research and trivia, with too many blue links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this junk needs to go KaBlam. JuJube (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added one reference to each of the pages. Mfowler11 (talk)

A source straight from Nickelodeon itself. That's not enough, sorry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hamilton

Bio written by user:Jake The Movie Guy. Looks like self-promotion to me. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is pretty notable in Houston. The only film critic, pretty much covers all entertainment news. Lots of billboards around town with him, and the station advertises him pretty well. Heard he got an Emmy nomination but don't know if this is true. Not worth deleting. It's all true. — IntheRED (Talk | contribs) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah he interviews everyone, you cant turn on your tv in houston without seeing this guy. his interviews are pretty cool. — makingmyway12 (Talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above comments were all written by Jake The Movie Guy (talk · contribs). He also replaced his username in the nominators rationale by user:IntheRED, which I undid. --Amalthea^Talk 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. The "Win a date with Jake Hamilton" thing [15] [16] is far from enough to fulfill significant coverage about the topic. Him writing for the Houston Chronicle doesn't make him notable either. See this unreliable source for a biography about him, which is not enough for an encyclopaedic entry. --Amalthea^Talk 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock 2 (film)

Non-notable (and unreferenced) future made for cable TV movie. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL.Kww (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Camp Rock#Sequel, as per previous deletion discussion. RayAYang (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Camp Rock#Sequel per RayAYang. Unsupported, unsourced article fails WP:Crystal, WP:N, and WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too far in future, unreferenced. Maybe should be salted too, to prevent recreation before it goes into production (which, admittedly, is likely). --Ebyabe (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY VERY VERY STRONG DELETE--72.234.211.105 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please watchlist this page if you can. I have a feeling it's going to get hit with vandalism. We already have one user who keeps removing the delete notice. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete script is still in development? That means nothing is concrete, sos fails WP:CRYSTAL for sure. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFF, and Camp Rock#Sequel seems to already contain all the mergeworthy content, and is well sourced. --Amalthea^Talk 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NFF], and the deleting admin may also care to have a look at Camp Rock 2 Soundtrack -- if the future film is not notable then I can't imagine how the putative soundtrack can be also. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother Cicero

Non-notable short film, despite winning two awards at relatively minor festivals. Appears to fail WP:MOVIE Ecoleetage (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Award wins suggest notability, but I can't find any decent references for them, or indeed any solid sources for this film. Would suggest merging into Tony Nittoli, but we don't have an article. PC78 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. There is this at IMDB. I'll see if I can dig up mare on awards... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly, Wikipedia currently does not recognise IMDB as a reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Wikipedia does recognize IMDb to a point... as a tertiary source for non-contentious facts that are themselves supported by secondary sources... such as actors and crew, but certainly not for bio or trivia. It is not always the best.... but IMDb can be used if otherwise supported. When I use it myself, I make sure it is well supported. However, I am not arguing that case here... only suggesting that if the film is listed at IMDB, it may be found elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote from "weak" to a definite "keep". Found the film listed at omdb.si (a Slovakian database), Most-Wanted-Movies, MicroCineFest, Querythe.net, TopTenReviews.com, Hotflick.net, ImpossibleFunky.net, BarkingDogSound, New York Underground Film Festival, The Village Voice, FilmmakerMagazine.com, NetGlimpse, et al. It does seem to have a minor notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry, MQS, but it still does not pass WP:RS. A fleeting mention in a wrap-up of a festival is not what the Wikipedia standards require.Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well.... my understanding is that the guideline at WP:RS relies on the policy at WP:V. There, WP:V speaks toward "reliable sources" by saying "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context" and further that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." With all respects, since policies take precedent over guidelines, since the standards for a short film are less stringent than those for an article on quantum theory, and since the sources I found do do not make any exceptional claim, I'll stand by them as passing WP:V and, in the context they were offered, as thus passing WP:RS. I have the greatest respect for your continued superb work on Wiki... and you may certainly disregard any of the of the ten proffered links you feel does not meet WP:RS, but I'll stick with my vote for I feel that in this little instance for this little film, notability has been shown. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Toward that end, I have just cleaned up the article per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and moved the above links over to its External Links section. Will see about further citing to affirm WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a borderline issue about WP:FILM, but there is no doubt that the article is verifiable, and verifiability, not notability, is the main inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. While the sources for this short film (especially IMDB) aren't going anywhere, there's nothing to indicate that the short will not gain more notability in the future. Other than that, Michael Schmidt makes some good points. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Enough sources to deduce notability - ATEOTD it's a short, not a blockbuster.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. Ticks the boxes (just). Ged UK (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Hands

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Also the subject is of questionable notability. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is short but informative, and the term is definitely notable in a UK context: see incoming links. Added proper ref (previewable through Google Books). Hqb (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly notable; in theory UK governments can't form without it, even if that's a little archaic now. With added ref this is now verifiable too. Ged UK (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scour

Previously deleted per WP:CSD#A7; discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 15 indicated some discomfort with that decision, with solid arguments on both sides. A full debate, I think, is in order. The current article does not demonstrate sufficient notability through reference to reliable sources. This is a procedural nomination, but my own instinct is to delete. Chick Bowen 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added quite a few reliable third-party sources. Article doesn't seem particularly spammy to me. Gr1st (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article asserts notability, company is notable (notable enough to get sued by MPAA, RIAA and NMPA), and article isn't an advert. Whether the new version of the company is notable in its own right is a different question, but the history of the company should be sufficient, notability doesn't have to be constant. Ged UK (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now looks fine. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Tavis Toman

No evidence for encyclopedic notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Created and edited by two single-purpose accounts, the article contains a huge amount of links to Mr. Toman's web sites, but no independent reliable sources - a blog posting noting the self-publication of one of his albums does not suffice. Prod was disputed with arguments which are honorable in themselves, but are not consistent with Wikipedia's definition of notability (Toman suffers from a lack of recognition, obviously stemming from his own self-deprecating nature. Simply because he has gone largely unnoted does not mean he is unnotable). HaeB (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although the subject does return some results on Google, these are mostly blogs which can not be viewed as reliable sources per WP:RS. Does appear to fail WP:BAND. AVand ^talk _contribs 19:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a little foolish to be suing for "justice" on Wikipedia, and I can't help but suspect that there is something of the humor of the gods in the fact that someone like this High On a Tree so-and-so would waste his time NOW on somebody like Damien Tavis Toman, whose chief difficulty in life seems to be that nobody has yet wasted enough time on him. I will be more than glad to insert footnotes to independent, third-party reviewers who have (for instance) lauded Toman's albums as "the greatest ever recorded," and balance the hyperbole with other reviewers who could not overlook his lo-fi ethic. Toman is a painfully independent artist who doesn't actively distribute his own work to the media. One discovers Toman by accident, or not at all. Unfortunately, Wiki notability standards are hard to apply in Toman's case, because the nature of his distribution method, such as it is, i.e, uploading each album to Soundclick.com, does not allow one to verify how many times any given song has been listened to or downloaded. Among those others I know who listen to him, he is unfortunately something of a coveted secret: his fans are not the sort of people who spend a lot of time on the Internet, gushing over their newest indie-rock heartthrobs. His discretion, it seems, is infectious. Maybe Wikipedia just isn't ready for anyone so atypical. All the same, I do not think his having an article is dangerous to anybody, least of all to the Wiki empire itself, which has already been irrevocably academically anathematized. My suggestion, therefore, is that you await my edits (which are ongoing), and kindly lay off. VGEpstein (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lack of verifiability due to minimal reliable sources - referring to notable media references - means a lack of notability. I don't see this artist meeting WP:MUSIC at this point. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Humble Best - I entirely understand that I am chafing against Wiki policy with this article. But of all people, administrators (who seem to spend an unwholesome amount of time on Wikipedia) should be willing to admit that many, many articles are created about artists that do not meet the "notability" standard, and are overlooked. In my article about Toman, I have made use of every external source available, and have peppered the text with substantiating links. If I had written an article about some flash-in-the-pan crooner from 1957 who charted at #12 for the blink of an eye, but provided no sources or citations, the article would doubtless have been marked - but NOT for deletion. My view is that the industry has evolved, so your idea of who is notable and why ought to evolve as well. But we all know how notoriously opposed to change bureaucracies are... and Wikipedia is nothing if not a hive of self-appointed petty bureaucrats, frantic to gain the sense of relevance that they delight in denying others. Delete, then, if your rules tell you to; if it will make you feel useful. I've done all I can for you, and for my subject. VGEpstein (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no contradiction between making great music and not having an article on Wikipedia. And I would certainly agree with you that there are some people who have great commercial success with their music (as evidences by charts etc.), and therefore are regarded as encyclopedically notable, but whose music lacks artistic value.

But what you do not seem to understand is Wikipedia's principle of not making judgements of artistic value ourselves, but merely reporting the judgments of others - in this case, it is not our job to listen to Mr. Toman's music, or going to his gigs, to see if we agree with your opinion (which could quite possibly be the case!). Instead, Wikipedia rely on the judgement of the general public, as evidenced by reviews in established media, decisions of record companies and commercial success.

You seem to be a genuine music enthusiast and I am sorry if the editorial process of this Wikipedia article causes you bad feelings. But you also seem not to understand the problems that Wikipedia would face if it wouldn't adhere to its notability guidelines - how about looking through Special:NewPages yourself for a while?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, I'm afraid I have to agree with the deletion votes. I like Toman's stuff (well, most of it), but it's a tiny number of people, even a check on last.fm shows hardly anyone listening to him. He just isn't notable enough. God knows there's plenty of articles on wikipedia about rubbish, talenetless artists, but they're (sadly) more notable because they've signed album deals, or had success, or been written about in the music press. Ged UK (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

First off, I have to say I was surprised to finally see a DTT article on Wikipedia! Now, my two cents on deleting it:

In theory, Wikipedia exists not to determine the validity of an artist, but to document their existence. If wikipedia becomes a judge and jury of culture and what should be deemed "relevant", it has ceased to provide an objective view and should be billed as a subjective medium capable of such discriminations. I don't think anyone wants that.

I have a large portion of Toman's discography, one of which is the massive box set I ordered after seeing his ad for it on MySpace. I have loads of his songs on my iPod right now. I have gone to his shows with plenty of friends who are also aware of his music. It seems unfortunate that if I were to try to spread his subversive music, I could not recommend Wikipedia as a source for information.

By nature Toman is a subversive and odd fellow, which seems to be an integral part of his concept as an artist. He may have a small fan base by arena-rock standards, but his unique ability to thrive under harsh and inhospitable climates makes him more like a rare species worthy of study than one worthy of extinction! Recommending his article for deletion seems so paradoxical to me it's at the point of silliness.

Anyway, thanks for hearing my thoughts.

Infaction ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) infaction (a fan of the musician who exists [at least enough] to have a page on Wikipedia)[reply]

CommentI agree that he should be studied, but that's exactly what Wikipedia is not for; wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything ever. See WP:NOT for more clarity. If (and hopefully when) Toman starts being noticed by the larger music press (or smaller but well respected), then he'd warrant an encyclopedic entry. Until then, I can't see why he's different to the thousands of other unsigned, highly talented artists around. Sadly. --Ged UK (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. i don't want to assume bad faith, but only six individual listeners on last.fm, a website to which anyone can upload their music, does not speak of a musician with a big underground following but a minor lack of reliable sources. It speaks to me of promotion for a prolific yet non-notable musician with production and distribution methods that are actually pretty unexceptional and quite common, rather than unique or subversive. Lots of people release their own music on or off the internet. tomasz. 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's Mom

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Henry's Mom

I fail to see the notability in a "minor recurring character" from an animated series. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Let me edit it then make your final decision. User:Mfowler11 User talk: Mfowler11[reply]

Smerge to Henry (KaBlam!). -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even notable enough to be a redirect in my opinion. Just a minor recurring character, and I don't even think Henry and June deserve pages themselves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not critical to the show. Ged UK (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G4) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Disneymania

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess DisneyMania. Speedy delete for repost (no new sources) contested without explanation. Original reasons apply. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (already done). Synergy 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk

I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this actor. A Google search turned up few results that would establish more notability. In fact, looking at the page's history, it seems that it was originally created as a redirect. Marlith (Talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redirecting as he only starred in this film The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicism

PROD removed without improvements or explanation. This is original research on a non-notable neologism. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicism, much like agism and racism, is a term the summarily and concisely pulls describes the discrimination that people or groups of people incur when expressing their political beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckelkamp2020 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that all article be verified by reliable sources. Got any? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like ageism and racism it summarily and concisely describes the discrimination based on a particular item of ones self that is completely arbitrary. Certainly if ageism and racism are allowed to summarily and concisely describe that type of discrimination then a page that describes discrimination based on political beliefs should be allowed. While research is emerging from both sides it is generally agreed upon that this does in fact exist in everyday conversation and interaction. Additionally the human rights link above serves as a valid research start and this page can serve as a placeholder until more research can be found. Until then I see no reason why the word should be taken down. Research will continue, primarily in American with the upcoming election, the recent events with Mugabe in Africa, the Chinese crackdown on dissidents, and many others. Eckelkamp2020 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you refer does not use the term "politicism" at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism, unless reliable sources can be found and added. No prejudice against re-creation if the term does become notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one link in the article, and that's to a page that doesn't contain the word "politicism". I did a google search (a quick one, admittedly), and I can't find a reliable source to support it. The prejudice exists, but the word doesn't. In any case, even if it weren't a neologism, it would be a dictionary definition. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best a protologism. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per above. Alun (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether neo-, proto, or auto- logism, the article fails WP:DICT. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverified, unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is it supposed to snow in August? I would say to transwiki this to Wiktionary, but I'm not familiar enough with their inclusion policies to know if this needs more sources for that too. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African IQ

Article is not notable, is a pov-fork of Race and Intelligence, is a synthesis as the citations do not discuss African IQ, but are a collection of publications about specific measurements from different populations within Africa, with the article drawing these papers together, constituting original research Alun (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alun (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alun. Also, a perusal of the sources listed indicates that a large proportion of the "samples" studied were unrepresentative of the populations (e.g.: children with ADDH, chlidren raised in an orphanage, undernourished children, etc.). Presenting these mixed results as representative is intellectually dishonest.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article just rehashes material discussed in the article on Race and intelligence. The number of sources provided is misleading - the bulk of the research comes from one very controversial book; moreover, the issues at stake in this research is identical to the issues in the race and intelligence article. It just doesn't merit its own article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not WP:SYN or WP:OR because the review articles (e.g. Lynn, Wicherts, Malloy) on which this is based are all published in scholarly journals. Tables themselves are taken directly from these papers rather than being "synthesized" by a WP editor. Notability is well established by widespread press coverage of the topic. Race and intelligence is mostly about the US. An article on African IQ issues is needed. They are a separately discussed issues. --Legalleft (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is based on Malloy's view, where are the alternate views? Where is the proper attribution of this single view? Is this view even notable (how many reviews has this one paper from Malloy garnered? Are the views analyzed and echoed somewhere else? Are they taught in universities?) These are all questions which need answers. Otherwise, we're building a whole article based on a single paper.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You miss my point about Wicherts etc. Malloy is simply the latest to produce a nicely organized table. Moreover, NPOV issues are not relevant to AfD. It should be clear that this is notable. You'll note that I tried to leave several 'expand' templates to indicate the need for additional material. --Legalleft (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising issues about notability of the view. There is no evidence that Malloy's view is notable. It is not clear at all that this particular view is notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African IQ isn't a notable topic? --Legalleft (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more than North American IQ, European IQ or Asian IQ are notable. Now, you don't see article about these, now, do you?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables themselves are taken directly from these papers rather than being "synthesized" by a WP editor. If this is true, then why don't the tables cite the sources you mention? I looked through the table and found a citation for an IQ of 50 for a group of 17 year olds in Gambia (citation no 49). When I checked the citation I found no mention of an IQ of 50, there was no mention of IQ at all the paper did not mention Africa as a whole. What I did find was a study of the utility of malarial prophilaxis during infancy.[17] Clearly this figure is not taken from the paper cited in this case. There is a significant problem with attribution in this case. Alun (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence test scores from sub-Saharan Africa[12]" see ref # 12, and so on. --Legalleft (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the paper cited for this figure of an IQ of 50, the paper cited does not give a figure for IQ at all.[18] Inappropriate attribution does not strengthen your case, it only makes it look like an attempt to portray the subject as more significant than it really is. The article is full of these inconsistencies. The section entitled "Average test scores" starts by claiming that "Intelligence test scores from large samples of Black Africans have been reported in the scientific literature for decades." How does this correlate with IQ? Not all "intelligence" tests measure IQ, and not all can be used to estimate IQ. As far as I can see, although the claim is perfunctorily true, IQ has not been routinely tested, but a single person has attempted to produce an estimate of "IQ" from a plethora of various tests, performed by numerous different organisations for a variety of different reasons over many decades with extremely differing methodologies often on war traumatised populations. This article seems to be little more than an attempt to introduce a single source by a single person who has written a paper for the sole purpose of supporting the racist comments of James Watson.[19] I don't see that as notable. Watson must be mortified that he has sunk so low that people like Rushton and Jensen are supporting him.[20] Starting an article for the sole purpose of promoting Watson's remarks and a single paper that supports him is not what editors on Wikipedia should be doing. Alun (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a fairly blatant pov fork. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (1) The AfD nominator and several of those who voted to delete don't think that national IQ is appropriate for Race and intelligence, for example: (a) This article is about "race" and "intelligence" it is not about IQ variation between different states. I assume when you say "national" you are referring to states and not nations? Alun (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC) (b) to make the jump IQ vs nation to IQ vs Race is basically original research. There are other places where this picture might be appropriate; here isn't one of them.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (2) Even if you think it is a POV fork, then your recommendation should be "Merge". I don't think the race and itnelligence article can do justice to this topic because the primary focus has to be on the United States. --Legalleft (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: what does this have to do with anything? The subject of IQ by nationality is alread broached in IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Those are the names of books. Not topical articles. The theses of those books aren't specifically about African IQ even if they are most well known for the data they tabulate on African IQ. --Legalleft (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's notable because there are no books about it? Alun (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Ramdrake was asking whether the topic isn't already covered by those articles, but I pointed out that those were book review articles, not topic articles, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge there. Indeed, the books are citation in this article (or should be if I forgot them). --Legalleft (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Ramdrake was saying is that there are articles where a map showing average IQ by state is appropriate, and there are articles where it is not. Clearly the articles he links to are appropriate for such a map, whereas "race" and intelligence is not. Alun (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was protesting the strawman argument which Legalleft seems to advance that this article is needed because inclusion of an "IQ by nation" map was turned down at Race and Intelligence. Otherwise, Alun is correct.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think African IQ should be discussed in Race and intelligence, and thus you recommend merging? Just as long as its not data collected at a national level??? --Legalleft (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "race" and intelligence should discuss the concept of "race" and how some scientists have claimed that "intelligence" varies between these socially constructed "races". As such it should provide evidence for both the existence or non-existence of biological "race" and also discuss what "intelligence" is, how it is measured, the various discussions regarding the validity of "intelligence tests" (and many scientists still hold the view that these tests are biased). Likewise it should discuss the published views of noted scientists who have commented on this. Currently the article expresses the views mainly of a sub-set of psychologists and ignores the views on "race" and "intelligence" (both as individual subjects and as a single subject) of a plethora of biologists and anthropologists. For example I note that the book "Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth" [21] is not cited a single time in the "R&I" article (I'd like to get hold of this, but at £75 it's a bit steep for me). Indeed when I added the views of several noted anthropologists and biologists regarding the validity of "biological race" to the introduction of the "race" and "intelligence" article Legalleft removed them and replaced them with psychologists,[22] who are not experts in human variation. Furthermore if any researchers have linked the "intelligence" of Africans to the "race" and "intelligence" debate, then these views belong in the "race" and "intelligence" article, there appears to be no clear reason for creating this content fork, the subject appears to have no notability outside of the "race" and "intelligence" debate. The reason for not supporting the maps produced at a state level is that the populations of states do not constitute "races", unless you are now claiming that African Americans are part of the same "race" as European-Americans, which I seriously doubt as this would undermine the arguments and sources for about 90% of the "race" and "intelligence" article. So yes, fundamentally the discussion of African "IQ" belongs in "race" and "intelligence" if a reliable source positions these arguments on a "racial" level. For example the data collected and included in the African IQ article don't cite sources about the IQ of Africans (see above). If Mallory has published these data in the context of "African IQ" and claimed that the populations sampled represent a coherent biological grouping (i.e. if Mallory claims that somehow all sub-Saharan Africans represent a biologically homogeneous group or "race" (an absurd notion in my personal view, but that's unimportant for the purposes of verifiability)) then yes the conclusions of these authors should be included in the "race" and "intelligence" article. As for why this is going through AfD instead of a merge on the talk page, it's because it will recieve a great deal more input from non-contributing editors here, so a better cross section of the community will be able to comment on the proposal. "African IQ" is a newly created and rather obscure article, as such a merge discussion on the talk page is unlikely to get much attention from the broader community. This has precedent within the community. Alun (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would you vote to delete? IMO, the topic of African IQ can't get appropriate attention in the "race and intelligence" article just as "race and intelligence" can't get appropriate attention in the "race" article. I believe the talk page at "race and intelligence" backs up this contention, as shown by the snippets of talk I presented above. An article with more than 50 references is notable enough to stand on its own, even if it is summarized at "race and intelligence". --Legalleft (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the number of references in an article isn't a criterion of notability. According to Google scholar, the Mallory article (which is the basis for this article) is quoted all of 3 times in the scientific literature. I would say this is a sure indication of utter lack of notability. Also, most of your references are recopied directly from the Mallory article. I could write an article based on a science paper and cite all of its references to make it look well-referenced, but that doesn't make it any more notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review article summarizes a topic, and thus the papers it cites are relevant. A paper published in 2008 isn't going to have been cited that many times. But a Google search for "African IQ" (no permutations) finds greater than 1000 hits. Moreover, the Malloy article is simply one of multiple reviews. The Wicherts PhD dissertation I pointed out to you is another recent publication. How much more notable does a topic need to get than several scholarly works and 4-digit Google hits? --Legalleft (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google will have several hits that are blogs (such as VDARE and others, and multiple hits from Wikipedia). A Google scholar search turns up onl 32 hits based on the same expression; far from notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32 scholarly articles is far from notable? Try taking the quotes off the search, or permuting for synonyms. This topic was the cover story of major newspapers last November. Perhaps if Watson had never mentioned it you would have a arguable case for lack of notability and merge into a higher-level article, but that event generated a huge amount of media quotes from scholars expressing their opinions about this specific topic. So some number between 32 and greater than 1000 is the notability in Google metrics. --Legalleft (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 32 scholarly articles mentioning the words "African IQ" in this order is far from notable. Taking the quotes of will search for anything related to African or IQ, and will give you tens of thousands of unrelated hits. Watson's spat of last November was a news event that came and went, and is hardly ever mentioned again now, except in discussions like this one. I still reiterate that the subject is not notable enough for its own article. Let's just wait and see how people feel about this AfD.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article about something politically innocuous -- such as a random species of insect -- with similar citation stats, no one would dream of supporting an AfD. I don't see why psychometrics should be held to a different standard than lepidopterism. I've seen no arguments that support deletion on the merits, and I think you should reevaluate your vote. --Legalleft (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which a quick look at the authors of these 32 hits for google scholar shows that a large plurality are by Rushton (Rushton seven times in the first ten hits, ten times in the first twenty hits and fifteen times in the whole 32 hits [23]), with a great deal of overlap between the data. It hardly amounts to numerous independent publications and emphasises the fringe nature of the material, with the same names cropping up again and again. The weakness of the notability claim is highlighted by the article itself, it begins with the "Watson controversy", but James Watson is neither an expert of Africa nor an expert on cognitive ability. How do his comments display notability? The reaction to Watson's claims was incredulity and condemnation as simple ignorance. Alun (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal incredulity is not a notability criteria, per the talk page thread. --Legalleft (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no one claims it is. But the lack of authority of Watson is relevant. Alun (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being the former director of the Human Genome project, Watson publishes papers on the genetics of schizophrenia (last one earlier this year). You realize of course, that one of the first schizophrenia associated genes also is reported to affect IQ. He's very familiar with the psychometrics and behavior genetics literature, as you can tell from his latest book. --Legalleft (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's directorship of the HGP is not relevant to his authority regarding the population of Africa, neither is his expertise in schizophrenia. I think the point is that this article is almost entirely based on Watson's comments of last year and a couple of essays published in the journal Medical Hypotheses that have supported him.[24] [25] [26] Indeed the editor of this journal claims that scientific debate should not be stifled by political correctness, but Watson was not speaking in a scientific capacity, and was not presenting research he had conducted, he was giving personal opinion. Even Malloy's use of words is odd, "there is data (sic) to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors", well cancer is "influenced by genetic factors", but no one is claiming that smokers are genetically different to non-smokers. Some smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than others due to genetic variation in the population, some non-smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than other non-smokers. The correlation between smoking and cancer is not genetic, but we know that genes are involved in cancer susceptibility and that smoking is highly heritable (~70%).[27]. It's a very odd turn of phrase. The journal Medical Hypotheses seems to have a habit of publishing scientifically dubious opinion.[28] And it's editor seems to be a fully paid up member of the "poor people are poor because they are stupid" point of view.[29] All in all there's not much to make this notable, a couple of essays supporting Watson, published in an obscure journal does not make for a great deal of notability as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing the credentials of Watson w.r.t. expertise on behavior and genetics is ludicrous. I professionally know a lot about this topic, and I don't have the credentials Watson does. His arguments were published in his latest book, not simply reported in the news. Also, characterizing a field of research as consisting only of the unsupported opinions of secondary source review writers is ludicrous. That's like arguing that evolution is merely Richard Dawkins' opinion. The reason there are so many citations in this article is that there are so many primary sources. --Legalleft (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) (1) I didn't dismiss "the credentials of Watson w.r.t. expertise on behavior and genetics". You stated that he was a former director of the HGP and was an expert in schizophrenia, I pointed out that this article is not about the HGP or schizophrenia, your comment is simply irrelevant. Your comment was simply an appeal to authority, i.e. that we should "believe" him because he's a famous scientist, that's a logical fallacy. (2) Watson's entitled to his opinions, and of course because he's famous many people will read his book, but Watson's opinions are his opinions, let's not pretend that they have any more significance than that. He's entitled to his opinions, but Wikipedia is not here to present the personal opinions of famous scientists as if they were "facts". We can portray the professional opinions of famous scientists of course. (3) Furthermore I didn't characterise "a field of research as consisting only of the unsupported opinions", I said that Malloy's use of words seemed odd. Now I know why, it's because he has no understanding of this field because he's not an expert but an artist blogger on a racist website. (4) Please try to respond to what I say, in your post above you haven't. It's very hard to have a discussion when you keep claiming I have written something I clearly have not written. Alun (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This POV fork is "profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence" Per Collins in the article. Also per the statements of Bob Sternberg in the article. Edison2 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I note that this comment is self-refuting in its recommendation to delete, as it cites the notable POVs in the article as evidence for its claims. --Legalleft (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The criticisms by the scientists show it is fringe science. In addition it is synthesis and original research. Edison2 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The criticisms show that its a notable topic. I don't know what the definition of "fringe science" is, or whether this topic fits that description, but at WP:FRINGE it says A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. So even if this is fringe science, it's notable fringe science, and hence deletion is inappropriate. --Legalleft (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Medical Hypothesis isn't a major publication. It's not even peer-reviewed.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - See my comments about Jason Malloy on Talk: African IQ. He's a blogger from the racist website Gene Expression[30] and is an artist with no scientific qualifications whatsoever. I don't know why he was asked to contribute to Medical Hypotheses. This journal has a history of publishing bad science, this would be hilarious if it weren't so racist.[31] Alun (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable per WP:NOTE. Also agree with other editors that it has an odour of POVFORK about it. Shot info (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tzu-Chiang Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior high's just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Contributer self identifies as sockpuppet of one blocked yesterday for numerous similar contributions. Extract for Education in Taoyuan County quickly because these deletions are likely to proceed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect this non-notable school to the "school district" or equivalent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DongSing Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior high's just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to a larger scope article. No inherent or documented notability for this junior high school. Edison2 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect this non-notable school to the "school district" or equivalent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus is clearly that this school should not have an article, and what content is there looks like a copy of the school's website. If, despite that, anyone wants it for a merged article, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hsing Nan Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior high's just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to an article for the school district. No inherent notability, no demonstrated notability, and a COI article full of "Our" and "We." Edison2 (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect this non-notable school to the "school district" or equivalent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunsin Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior highs just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment already redirected. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da-Cheng Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior highs just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected by Ged UK. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tahan Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior highs just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to Education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longgong Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior highs just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-de Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan suggestion. Junior highs just aren't notable on the whole, and there is no attempt to explain why this one is. Ged UK (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NanKan High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many other high schools that are notable. This one is not it Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the consensus is that high schools are notable. We need to avoid systemic bias and give time for local sources to be found. We should be increasing our poor coverage of education in Taiwan and developing pages not deleting them. TerriersFan (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long-standing consensus and history of keeping high schools.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the consensus appears to be that high schools are notable, and the suggested guidelines were heading that way, I guess that's the prevailing view. Can't understand it myself, but there we are. Ged UK (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ridiculous robotic nomination contrary to massively overwhelming precedent. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Education in Taoyuan County. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Luen Junior High School

Delete for non-notability. The creator of this article has created many non-notable high school pages already. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. There are many high schools in any given country. This one is simply not notable. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to new article Education in Taoyuan County which I am creating. This is according to the precedent established for Anglosphere middle schools. Though much of the page is promotional, there is encyclopaedic material that can be extracted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Education in Taoyuan County. Ged UK (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior high schools are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some cleanup is recommended, but is not an AfD issue. Shereth 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung-Feng High School

Delete for non-notability. There are many high schools within any given country. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. The page itself sounds like an advertisement Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the consensus is that high schools are notable. We need to avoid systemic bias and give time for local sources to be found. We should be increasing our poor coverage of education in Taiwan and developing pages not deleting them. TerriersFan (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is this consensus of which you speak? I can only find the failed proposal for schools which didn't achieve consensus. Ged UK (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've observed in the last two years, for every high school article that was AfD'd consensus has kept them all. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't matter, even if it were policy to keep high schools--COPYVIO trumps NOTABILITY (see Smith Jones's comment below)--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the COPYVIO stance. See comment below. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the copyvio too. Don't at all agree that High schools are/should be automatically be notable, but that appears to be th~~e consensus~~

Speedy< Delete - this article is jsut a sleazy ripoff of another article here Yung-Feng High School and a website see below0, which also shoudl be deleted. This is not the Tiwanese government homepage; we dont need to advertise their servieces for them. Keep witout the copyvio, the article is a bit beter and should ntot be automatically delted. Smith Jones (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page does not meet any of the speedy criteria. However, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up and merged with Yung Feng High School. TerriersFan (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake - I didnt realize tha tiw as okay to have two copies of the exact same article on the Wiki. That seems pretty sily but if you say its okay then I wont question it. Smith Jones (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Err, no its not okay to have two copies of the exact same article which is why they need to be merged, which I will do. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks mate i was afriad i would have to mes with this again Smith Jones (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete no assertion of notability. That said, there are a hell of a lot of school articles on here that I don't think are particularly more notable. We really need to get the notability guidelines/policy for schools sorted out quickly. Ged UK (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now the copy vio has been removed, it's a stub. High schools are apparently notable automatically. Ged UK (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. We normally keep high schools as notable. The article does need editing, for sure--but that's not a delete reason, that's a "so fix it" reason!SPEEDY DELETE per copyright violation--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - its not really oiur job to clean up every artice that gets speedy-copypastad from other websites. at the bery least, this is probably a plagiarism issue and in which case we shouldnt leave it up for so long since i think that its unethical to just copy and paste stuff from government websites and call it an "article". Smith Jones (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
followup - seriously, this article was toslen from here, a site that was not even credited in this article. It is copied WORD FOR WORD from this site without any creditation. How can this be okay in the rules??? Smith Jones (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

woops... see above, copyvio--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the topic likely is notable, I would say ~~Delete without prejudice as copyright violation~~ for now and let it be recreated in a non-copyright violation form. --Oakshade (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC) COPYVIO has been removed. It does seem like a major high school. Most websites about this school are in Chinese. While I can't read Chinese characters, it's hard for me to find web articles about it. But as consensus has kept high schools, deleting this one because of sources being in a foreign language would be a case of systemic bias. Keep --Oakshade (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice as copyright violation. "About us" indeed.~ Ningauble (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since copyvio has been removed. I agree with consensus that high schools are notable. ('Am not nobody, I are a HS grad.') It is a meaningful threshold of significance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged this as a speedy in case an admin doesn't happen to stumble across our little discussion :) Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contributer self identifies as sockpuppet of one blocked yesterday for numerous problematic contributions, but not for copyvio. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the copyvios' is gone but now its jsust an unsourced, nonnotable stub that is still a duplciate of another article. an improvement, technically. Smith Jones (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that copy-vio problems are fixed. matt91486 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Notability (high schools). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamarella

Completely non-notable wrestling duo. Article was speedy deleted and recreated. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Note that it is now a redirect to Santino Marella, half of the duo. Why not the other half? --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Male wrestlers wrestle more often than female, as the team is NN I made a choice, as it stands they have wrestled together once. And Delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being, if they continue to work together for the next few months, then an article *may* be justified. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason I've voted delete on the last 3242035 tag team articles where they've only teamed together once or twice. Nikki311 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HELL no! SteelersFan94 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenstern

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eisenstern

Non-notable upcoming game based on notable game engine. Though Sauerbraten is notable in its own right in this case notability is not inherited. No third-party sources that assert notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — crystalballery with no verifiable, third-party sources (SourceForge does not count.) MuZemike (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources. Nifboy (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no discussion here, but this is practically a speedy delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Duel

Unsourced Internet protologism related to playing the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game online. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, speedy deleted by Ian13 as it was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. AngelOfSadness talk 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing in heaven

Nonnotable albumn by a nonnotable person. Unreferenced and unverifiable. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you check itunes? because he's on there, and you can ask anyone on the isle of wight about him, they all know him, reverse this decision! COME ON YOU POUND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniou92 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Allen3 (CSD G7). Non-admin closure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan tzambazis

Geogre's law, just a distant relation of someone notable. StaticGull Talk 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Article's subject does not seem to have any claims to notability beyond that. TN‑X-Man 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is subsequent interest in merging this material, feel free to contact me for a userfied version for such a purpose. Shereth 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh University Counseling and Psychological Services

No need for a seperate article about a service the university offers. Rewrite and merge. StaticGull Talk 13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two arguments with this call for deletion. 1) This article was marked for deletion immediately (within one minute) after submitting to the Wikipedia community. This would not allow enough time to actually read the article and determine its worth. 2) User StaticGull noted "no need for a seperate article about a service the university offers." However, there is a precedent for listing seperate departments within a university when needed. For example, the Manilla College of Education at De La Salle University has an independent Wikipedia entry. --Weatherman41 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional precedent: Lehigh University has individual pages for the building, athletic teams, faculty, and an a cappella group. --Weatherman41 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is not usually a compelling argument. Article subjects should be notable in their own right. justinfr (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly notable. Just because something exists does not mean a wikipedia entry is warranted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, unless there is a reason why this counselling centre is different than the counselling centres at other universities, or has received coverage in other sources. justinfr (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main university article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a great service, but it isn't a "notable" great service. What makes it special? Different? Any news? Breakthroughs in research? Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Minding systemic bias, but the album doesn't actually appear to exist, as it's unreleased. Black Kite 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mshasho Mos!

Unreleased album, fails WP:MUSIC; not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I bet we can find sources if we don't just look for online ones. We must remember not to perpetuate Wikipedia's systematic bias.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have found nothing. Please add anything you have found. We cannot prove there are no reliable sources, only that we have not found them. Saying there might be sources we haven't found allows me to defend an article about the pebble stuck in the treads of my sneaker. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums—unreleased albums are NN without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". And let me know when the pebble article shows up, I've been dying to read up on that subject. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether this should be remade as a redirect or a dab page, is not for this AfD to decide. Shereth 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data lock

This is a neologism which a quick google search doesn't support. It's a re-expression of a particular form of Vendor lock-in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Vendor lock-in#Lock-in in electronics and computers. Nothing in the article is sourced, so there is nothing to merge. After reviewing both articles, it is indeed the same thing. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect, there are other meanings to "data lock", and the article is mostly a dicdef 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - What other terms are you referring to? If there are other meanings to Data lock, shouldn't we have a disambiguation page then? The term is used in the context I linked above, and it is a valid search. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Anonymous Dissident. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ck lingo

Not notable enough, can't speedy. Can only find blog entries except for the official website. StaticGull Talk 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it's a blatant advertisement for some entity (the application suite) and/or the companies that produced it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's an advertisment. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flie

Flie is not a character in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. A quick search on Google reveals nothing related to Les Misérables with the query "Flie" or "Flie Les Misérables". Plus, I personally have read Les Misérables and there is no mention whatsoever of this character, and User:Volga Burlak—who wrote on the discussion page for this article—agrees. Yvesnimmo (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Yvesnimmo (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Assuming what you say is true (I never got around to reading Les Miserables), then the character is non-existent and this a joke/hoax. Calor (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, no such character exists. Even though I knew all ready that the nom was correct, just for the record I found a site to search the text of the book here, and it yields no relevant hits. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no character of that name exists that I can find (and even if all of us so far has overlooked a character with this name I'm guessing that she wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Its been years since I've seen Les Mis, but I don't remember any character with that name or who performs those actions. And while I guess its a plausible enough hoax that it can't be speedied, its still most likely a hoax, and should be deleted asap. (Is it snowy in here?Umbralcorax (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:CSD says that hoaxes that are even remotely plausible should be left alone. This isn't even remotely plausible. Jasynnash2 and Umbralcorax both seem to know the book and say there's no such character. Xymmax has searched the whole text and found no mention of this character. I've just googled for Flie, Flié and Marquel in the text of Les Mis at Wikisource with no results. I'm tagging the article with {{db-g3}}. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to clarify- its the musical I'm more familiar with, not the book. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Diane

This is a non-notable artist who's yet to record an album. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of him... only briefly though. He has alot of myspace fans, and is apparently scheduled to be on the newest Diddy MTV reality show called "StarMaker", where diddy searches for solo acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.111.214 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he progresses beyond social networking sites, releases some recordings and/or gets significant coverage for TV appearances, he will become notable. Ka renjc 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redress (charitable organisation)

Non notable charity. No reliable sources cited. Some of the page appears to have come from an account with a conflict of interest. Prod removed by page creator without comment, article has stood with a {{notability}} tag for over a week. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, the prod remover did leave a comment on the article talk page, just not in the edit summary. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a maor player this appears to be a serious and dedicated organisation; which seems to be growing. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt the intentions of the organisation, only their notability. If they have not been covered by reliable sources, it is not our place to write about them. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added links to the charity commission data and 2007 report lots of ghits including a mention in a UK parliament House of Lords appeal document [32] which gives them some notability. Article just needs a tidy up. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

I created this article when I saw the organisation mentioned in the Torture article. I had not heard of them before but referenced their aims and details from their website which is given as a link. I have no conflict of interest, although they may have subsequently edited the article, most of these have been reverted. I cannot see the problem - regarding notability- they are supported by the UN, Oxfam and other emininent bodies and undertake extensive casework regarding torture survivors and are invoved with sponsoring a parliamentary bill. Many torture survivors would be interested in such a service which is not, to my knowledge provided elsewhere , especially not by the British Government, which supports the rioght of Saudi Arabia to torture its citizens even when innocent- see reference from

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/torture-britons-lose-bid-to-sue-saudis-482372.html --Streona (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to pass WP:N as said above. So Why 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant copyright violation, cut and paste of website essay. No better version in history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the oldest known Religion in the world?

Personal essay, full of original research, no references and hence verifiability. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:OR, personal essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's original research, as Otolemur says. I would suggest a merge into Religion, but I can't find anything in it worth merging. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:OR. Oh... and in response to the article... Paganism! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Answer to the question is in the second sentence, "Nobody knows what the first religion was." This looks like someone's answer to an essay question on an exam. Hope nobody fell asleep while it was being graded. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Incidentally I was surprised to find how many articles we have on development of religion, but they seem to be in a generally poor state. the wub "?!" 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an apparent copyvio of [33]. I'll tag it. --Rividian (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond (cardgame)

Doesn't appear to be a notable card game, author has removed PRODs twice Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be linkspam, a card game no-one has heard of linked only to the commercial site that presumably authored both the game and the wp article. Abtract (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS (complete lack of!), WP:V (is it?) and WP:NOTE (I think not!). The article would need a large amount of copyediting if it ended up with a "Keep" result, as it's written in quite an unorthodox style. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Article can be improved. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allison_Miller

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Allison Miller

Non-notable

This pornographic actress fails biographical notability requirements; she's never been nominated for awards, has been in limited and derivative films, ...

Additionally, since she's now listed as retired from the profession, she is unlikely to make future award-winning films; if she does, we can re-create the article.

There are several other unrelated Allison Miller articles on Wikipedia, the respective Allison Millers ALSO having been deleted, thus there is no no disambiguation page, leading to people believing those mainstream actresses or musicians are in fact the Venezuelan porn actress, which is undesirable as well. If the article is not deleted, either all those references should be deleted, or a disambiguation page should be added. (while this is less of an issue with many articles, it is genuinely difficult to tell in this case...I had to do substantial Internet research to determine there are at least 3 distinct Allison Millers in entertainment; in the case where one may be a porn star, and others are linked from children's productions, there should be some effort to disambiguate beyond that in many other cases...)

Ryan (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, fails all relevant guidelines, no sources beyond the trivial. Huon (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article which existed from March 2006 to November 2007 was about [34], and most existing links refer to that person. The actress Allison Miller is called the star of Kings (U.S. TV series) [35]. I think the old article should be restored. (The third AM is [36].) Gimmetrow 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup to be about the actress mentioned by Gimmetrow in his comment above (who has sufficient notability) instead of this NN actress of the same name which the article was changed to be about. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup to be about the actress mentioned by Gimmetrow; would the allisonmiller.com drummer be notable as well? Shes's had a fair bit of jazz industry (heh) press coverage. Ryan (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could make a dab or something Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we're going to do both the drummer and the mainstream actress, dab, but I don't think in any case the porn star is currently meeting the WP:BIO guidelines for notability. I'm pretty convinced the mainstream actress IS notable, but not sure either way on the drummer. Ryan (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghorewaha

Author removed prod template. Likely non-notable people group; I could not find any reliable secondary sources. Samuel Tan 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - I found this page which contains a lengthy scan of something that looks like an old scholarly text. If the source could be identified, it might well serve as a reliable source for the article, but right now it's an unsourced mix of fact and folklore. Huon (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to weak keep per 206.193.226.51's search results. The article still needs lots of attention, though. Huon (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable secondary sources, as requested. I'm not going to expand it because I don't have the necessary context to do a good job of it, but as a group they seems notable. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an article on an aspect of Indian history. My knowledge is insufficient to know how significant the subject is. I assume that Huon's souurce is old enough to be out of copyright, becasue the present text seems to follow it closely in part. The article needs considerable attention, but that suggests cleaning it up, not deleting it. I am not concerned about the fact that the story seems to come in part from oral tradition ("folklore"). Tales from that source are potentially suitable for WP, and in some cases are the only historical sources avaiable in lands where termites destroy writtne records. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Weiss

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 11:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability as stated. --Jimbo^[online] 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CRYSTAL, and snow. unannounced and unreleased Only objection is from article;s creator who hasn't provided a reason for keeping. TravellingCari 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco II: Sentinels of the Universe

Contested prod. Article pretty much says it all-"unannounced and unreleased sequel to Defender of the Future that was discovered in an eBay auction." Fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Movingboxes (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not want this article to be deleted. Fangusu (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Fangsu, Why? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I like it isn't an argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:RS and WP:V - the only sources I've been able to find are blogs, forums and the like. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 11:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, and for lack of notability even if there was a reliable source. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, non-notable, WP:CRYSTAL. Randomran (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — more unreferenced crystalballery. That is, a quick google search reveals mostly Sega fan(boy)sites. MuZemike (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blog/forum refs only and the game wasn't even released anyway? So what's notable? --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. Shereth 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Epoch Notation Painting

AfDs for this article:

This has been tagged for notability for a while. I cannot fathom how this is anything but original research: the references do not appear to be about the term itself, or an art movement per se. This is an essay. Even if notability were to be established, this would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. freshacconcispeaktome 10:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It reads like an essay because I got criticism on the discussion page that it was too cryptic. I have used large sections of an essay published in the journals listed below. I have not yet added the in text references because I haven't finished rewriting it. I did not know that the essay writing style was bad. I am quite happy to rewrite it as soon as I get time to review the rules on writing style.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like OR to me, and the only possible real source is, er, a couple of incorrectly filed audio recordings in a library in Australia. In any case, I'm not sure that this subject is notable, although I'd be prepared to be proved wrong on that point. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'That 'library in Australia' is the Australian equivalent of the library of congress! If you feel it is OR then go ahead and verify the sources, but don't condemn this article based on unsubstantiated SPECULATION. All the references listed are legitimate and the material in the article is based on those references. No original research from unpublished sources is included. As far as notability is concerned, if hundreds of articles about porn stars are notable, then a page about a communication system should have no trouble. Philip1966

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not only {{essay-like}} OR, but WP:COI, since it seems that the great bulk of edits to the article have come from Newepoch (an indefinitely banned account), two anon IP's in Victoria, Australia, and Philip1966, who appears to be the son of the system's originator. __Just plain Bill (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep based on recent edits. It appears the principal editor is doing a decent good-faith job of keeping a bit of encyclopedic detachment from the subject; this article may in fact clean up nicely after all. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah... well most articles are predominantly written by one person on here. I don't see how that is relevant.

My newepoch account was banned because 'it seemed to be the name of an organisation'. I have used it as a web name for 15 years, but I could not be bothered contesting the ban, so I made a new account which sounded more like an individual person. I only tried to comply with the rules, I did not try to disguise my identity. I will contest the ban if it will make you happy, but none of this is relevant. Philip1966

Comment User:Philip1966 would appear to be a sockpuppet of the permanently banned User:Newepoch, now you mention it... AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say 'permanently banned' like I am a criminal, but as I said above someone decided they did not like my name. Again this is not relevant.Philip1966

Comment yes, the User:Newepoch account was username blocked, he is allowed and encouraged to create a new account with a name that doesn't violate policy. TravellingCari 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intend to upload some Convenience links to solve the lack of on line reference material for NEA, but I am not superman. Philip1966

Delete. As far as I can understand the article, it seems to be proposing a sort of Labanotation for painting. The references given appear to be about art generally, and not about this method specifically. If I am grasping the nature of the project, it actually sounds interesting. But it first has to achieve notability elsewhere before it gets an article here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article."

That's from Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. The New Epoch Notation article says the project is being "... continued by his sons Philip... and Euan..." so the self-reference is plainly there.

As noted in the earlier AFD, some of this material would be appropriate as a section of the article on Peter Benjamin Graham.

Comment This is fair criticism. It is easy for me to set up my own website and I am in the process of doing so, however I wanted to put what is already published to the Wikipedia test. I wanted to see how neutral I could be, to see if I have a core of verifiable material to build out from.Philip1966

The article needs major cleanup to become an encyclopedic report of the technique as actually practiced. "Imagine, if you will..." leads on to a dreamscape speculation of what might come to be, but leads me to doubt that such a thing ever actually happened. As it now stands, that description is not exactly encyclopedic stuff. If it was copied from a journal article, credit needs to be given. It will also be useful to point out specific relevant parts of the Kandinsky and Gardner references. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art was published in 1911, and it's subject definitely isn't 1960s Australian art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kandinsky is referenced because NEA takes its name from a passage in his book Philip1966 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it does. And I can do this. I can even illustrate it because these 'dreamscapes' are in fact descriptions of actual events. NEA has been tested in the field over many years. The only trouble is I have very little published material to work with. I am trying very hard not to cross over into 'original research'. Philip1966

Comment I have replaced sections 'The reality of New Epoch Art' and 'NEA Performance' with cited material more suitable for this encyclopedia. Philip1966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.86.76 (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just inserted more references but need to integrate them into article.Philip1966 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. The article is almost entirely original research. The fact that Kandinsky is listed as a source rings alarm bells from the start. The other sources either don't refer to the notation method directly or are reviews of the work of Graham and his son, or are written by Graham and his son. The only third party source supporting the notability of the subject is Dr Litchman's article in the Journal of the Art Teachers Association of Victoria. If the primary editor, who seems to be conscientious and acting in good faith, can give the specific quotes from the other sources (the third party ones, not the ones written by Peter or Philip Graham) about the notation method I am willing to change my !vote.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What kind of alarm bells? NEA is not the first human creation named in honor of a earlier person's work. I have listed three third party articles totally dedicated to NEA: those by Rebecca Lancashire, Dr. Loy Litchman, Deborah Stone. I intend to rewrite parts of the article to emphasize the content of these articles. The other third part material quite rightly places NEA into the context of Peter Graham's work as a whole. Where is the critical threshold for the number of third party references?Philip1966 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General notability has not been established beyond obscure mentions. Do some Googling and you'll soon realise there's nothing there.--Lester 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to use the right key words. This area suffers from a plethora of names because most of its advocates often worked in isolation. A major key word is Colour Organ. In 1996 I did a full literature review looking for related research and precedents for a painting notation. It took me 6 MONTHS to find a single direct reference but I found hundreds that skimmed around the idea. Since then two parallel examples of visual notation have come to light through exhaustive internet searching. Notability is not determined simply on the number of references in existence, let alone the number of electronic references. Notability is determined in part on a subjects relationship to major intellectual and creative streams that have existed over time. The concept of visual notation is strongly linked to the theoretical writings of the Constructionist movement, including Kandinsky, Klee, Mondrian, and De Stijl, Kinetic Art, Color Music, the early history of Music Visualization. The fact is there is also a consistent thread within theoretical art writing denying the possibility or practicality of a painting notation. Making these links is beyond the scope of this article, let alone Wikipedia because it involves a great deal of original historical research. In the short, the concept was on the radar, but for the wrong reasons. I have a strong argument that these streams of art remained marginalized in the west because of a lack of intellectual property to present in these art forms. This argument is related to the VHS BETA war in the 1980s in which the technically superior technology, Beta lost out because its backers failed to gain the license to distribute a competitive percentage of available back catalogue of movie titles. In short, a medium will 'fail' mass acceptance if it does not have access to existing media content. This issue is in itself notable. The safest approch I can think of is to place a lot this material into a 'further reading' list.Philip1966 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails verifiability and notability. I participated in the original AFD and was, at the time, ambivalent. Having made a further, detailed attempt to track down additional sources from the now voluminous reference list I am now increasingly convinced that the topic is almost entirely unverifiable. Regardless, given the paucity of information on the topic it is certainly not notable. Several of the references suggest that material is available on the (subscription only) informit, which I happen to have full access to. A thorough search of that database, however, returns no references I can find to New Epoch anything. Debate 木 08:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. I am not convinced that the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article, and it looks like there's a fair momentum to delete, but WP:N does not directly limit the content of articles and there's useful material here that should be saved. Also per WP:Bite, for what that's worth. Debate 木 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do I have to do. Upload the references verbatim onto Wikisource? Photocopy them and MAIL them in? Is their some kind of wiki law that says 'if its not on the internet it does not exist?'. If Wikipedia has an article on the Loch Ness Monster, it can have an article on NEA. I have listed three third party articles totally dedicated to NEA: those by Rebecca Lancashire, Dr. Loy Litchman, Deborah Stone. Two of these are from mainstream media publications. The third is in a minor but verifiable journal that is available in most state libraries through out Australia. Their catalogues are all on line. Given the nature of these sources I would suggest it is probable that notability can be established.Philip1966 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that they must be on the Internet. There is, however, a fairly specific claim in the article that some of them are. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that checking the source provided will actually turn up those references. Are you arguing that it's irrelevant whether the articles are where they are claimed to be, or simply that my search skills are inadequate? If it's the latter then I'll willingly concede the point if the references can be found following more specific instructions. Debate 木 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK you've got me. I cross referenced my citations with the National Library of Australia's data base, and it gave me the on line sources. In my haste to complete my references I included the links. I shall remove the links. However I maintain that the existence of catalogue references to the INTERACTA journal should indicate it is probable that verifiability can be established. Philip1966 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion-Shell Reality

Undergrad "philosophy," unsourced and probable COI. In original version of article, there was a disclaimer that missing were "proper academic references, all of which I plan on contributing in the near future." When I opened conversation with creating editor on his talk page, they responded [[37]] with "what I put there will be saved for posterity, correct? Now I have more time to work on my thesis so it will be more likely to be published." Wikipedia isn't a place to put your ideas. Pure WP:OR Movingboxes (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above (i.e. non-notable, non-verifiable, COI, etc}.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Trolls~~Ogres are like onions... AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable OR by a college student. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. No viable sourcing visible. GRBerry 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, original "research", etc... Klausness (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 V8 Supercar season

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2009 V8 Supercar season (2nd nomination)

contains rumours or speculation, a template, but no actual confirmed information other than items saying there will be more information soon Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article will eventually have to be created and per this from the official website the calender will be released early September so this then can be added to the article and it should be sufficient to be an article on the pedia. It states that this is the 2nd nomination, is that a typo? Where is the link to the first one? From the logs all i can see is that they were deleted via prodding. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then it's my mistake, first time I've nominated an article for AfD and I assumed PRODs counted. --Falcadore (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I aint an expert either but yes i think prods doesn't count. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since there is already sourced information about the event. matt91486 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Chic

Article started life as a spam entry. Contested speedy. IP editor who removed speedy tag also removed the spammier content, leaving just a completely unreferenced neologism. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary for terms that also happen to be the names of stores. Movingboxes (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : Good candidate for List_of_chics or UrbanDictionary.com. After a little more reading: This seems a poor definition of "Seaside Chic". It's already on List_of_chics. Maybe with a source, that definition should be added. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we could find documentation that the term even exists outside of the name of this store perhaps. Movingboxes (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to exist. See my updated text above. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the "inspired by the sea" sense described by the article? The article's definition is different that what I'm seeing at List_of_chics. Movingboxes (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is different, however of the same theme, which I suppose is seastuff. It's said above adequately, the term is highly a unreferenced neologism. Considering the link to the store was used originally, I think this is a fan of the clothing who developed her own definition to reference it. I'm new to Wiki contributing, so I'm not sure how common term-defining pages are accepted. It would seem to me List_of_chics should resolve this. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm pretty new myself! I personally would support redirecting this to List_of_chics without adding the unreferenced material to the actual list itself. Movingboxes (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Anyone can invent a new chic. That doesn't warrant inclusion. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF as the hangon appeal iself states "It is only a description of the term." Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentish

Original research, collection of Spanish sayings into English as if they were used in that non existent dialect. Mariano(t/c) 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added information: there is no info on google on Argentish nor any "Argentine English" dialect. Spanglish is a verifiable dialect in USA, but there's simply not such thing in Argentina. There are people that speek English badly, but a collection of common mistakes doesn't sound Encyclopedic, specially if referred to as Argentish. Mariano(t/c) 09:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~KeepMove~~ ~~Seems suitable for encyclopedic interest, some problems with a lack of sources rather than WP:OR, I would say WP:SOFIXIT seems more appropriate than delete.~~ Justin talk 09:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I would agree if there existed something such as Argentine English. My point is that it doesn't, and therefore this is not only an original research, but almost a hoax. Spanglish is present in USA, but there's not such thing in Argentina. Mariano(t/c) 09:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for explaining, withdrawn my comments. Justin talk 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on keeping/deleting, but given that the article states up front that "Argentine English" is the more commonly used term, if kept it should probably be moved. the wub "?!" 10:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally bogus and OR. I lived there for over 25 years in the past and can tell you there is no such thing. There are many places where a local flavor of pidgin English words get incorporated into the language but only a few are recognized (e.g. Engrish and Singlish). There is no such thing in Argentina. -- Alexf⁴² 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: the collection of external links in the article is mostly bogus too. Most of them do not even point to or show anything corroborating the claims. -- Alexf⁴² 12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, In Argentina many people speak varying degrees of english. In Buenos Aires many shop signs and posters include english words, this probably has more to do with english being the global language rather than the existence of a genuine "Pidgin" language. In my opinion the existance of a number of people speaking english badly, or using the occasional word of english is not worthy of an encyclopaedia article. E P 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most significant claim in the article-- that "Argentina may have some 100,000 native English speakers"-- is the one that isn't confirmed by anything I see in the sources. To do a real bad Argentish pun, I am "one prone" to doubt this. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Coldmachine^Talk 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is totally fake. I'm half-Argentinian, and I never heard of Argentish. When Argentines learn English, they don't learn this "Dialect", they learn basic International English. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMove The English diversity it is always a good thing nor must be it, in this case, compared with the Spanglish phenomenon, Argentina is a singular country with its own linguistics mutations, phenomenons which probably are happening throughout the globe. On the other hand I'm Argentinian as Marianocec user and usefully use to chat up with words as "River Plate" "colective" or even "picketer" with other BA's or La Plata's Argentines in other cases. Yes, indeed that referring on those 100000 Argentish doesn't have any support but still there are lots of "Argentish" expressions in the B. A. Herald newspaper as you would see as follow:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

^ [1] "Picketers"
^ [2] "dissapeared"
^ [3]"Pink House"
^ [4] "BA city"
^ [5]"Peronist"

As you can see merely an older than a century newspaper can mirrors the truly traits of a society. please don't delete this one of our country: Argentina. Have a nice day all Carau(talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not at all convinced. Aren't these just English words in an English-language newspaper? What you see as "BA City" for Buenos Aires is a headline referring to the "B.A." "City Hall", using the same type of headline shorthand as one finds in NYC or LA. You may see "disappeared" as being a sub for Desaparecido, but it's used as a past tense verb, not a noun. "The Pink House" as a substitute for the Casa Rosada (or the government in general) might be something that English-speaking Argentinians might use when conversing in English, but that's not much to go on. Question-- is there a similar article on es.wikipedia.org? Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Carau, I truly believe you are trying to contribute to the Wikipedia, but the article is just not encyclopedic. The term "Argentish" is something you invented yourself (please, carefully read WP:OR), and the article reads as an essay you wrote on a subject that has not been discussed before. The kind of mistakes Argentine people make while speaking in English with a turist is not to be confused with a so-called Dialect or Pidgin, claiming that there's an English dialect in Argentina because some lousy students would say "colective" for an autobus during their English class is more of a hoax than fact. What's more, Picketer, Dissapeared, pink house, and Peronism are proper English words, with exactly the same meaning as in your Argentish. There's no mention to such pidgin in the Spanish wikipedia (see f.i. es:Lenguas de Argentina. That said, I will proceed with the deletion of the article after the 5-day voting period, since I consider (and I ask the rest of the participants to speak if they don't agree) no valid arguments where given for the article to remain in Wikipedia. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable Decision Good wiking?? please I'll say "Good killing" instead. However, those "lousy" students which you mentioned are them, in your undefined English-lousy-level scale for people, so less English speaker than those who had born in oxfordshire? I belive, that those lousy students can communicate and convey theirs ideals and humans thought in English even with more freedom that you do Mister.

On the mention to the "Argentish"^[1] expression I can assure you that is not "my invention" as you said, on latter URL I could found the only web example before the deleted article was built.

Ok, your are right, those proper nouns are from English, English instead Argentine English so could you please affirm that proper nouns as "Peronist", "Rugbier"^[2] are American or British English otherwise? All probably we would say that we are forgetting where Peron bore or where the River Plate is situated, undoubtedly the most historic and emotional resting meaning of these words do on the Argentine English speakers rather than on any other English speakers in the globe.

One special instance there might be on the "disappeared" word ^[3] English word, by using the past participle tense, here in South America and specially in Argentina, has a profoundly relation in meanings with the dictatorship era; different would be the emotional and historic meaning of this word in the U.K. or U.S. cases.

Probably there wasn't much of evidence available in web, but in my personal experience by interacting with Argentine English speakers --or we can say to not perturb you in your personal fight against the "Argentish"-- whom use those proper noun with an Argentine emotional linking, naturally where the widening in meaning becomes huge.

Although isn't it an established dialect, an official one, this is in constant evolution within the Argentine society I do welcome this deletion with sorrowfulness and as a regretful fact either for all those people that enjoy learn and interact through English in Argentina.

Shame on whom have "disappeared" this truthful contribution to the Argentine Culture. A truly evidence that some rules should be modified to avoid the Authoritarianism of some Wikipedians who hindered behind the "official" to restrict contributions of relative newer wikipendians as this contributor does, or should I to have needed lots of barnstar or languages colored credentials to make up some contribution? or worst: restrain others new user contribution.

I do propose this obliterated article in a new category as one deleted by the "Wikipedian's Authoritarianism"

Carau(talk) 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ First ever mention to the "Argentish" expression on web (before the article had built up by me): see "BubbaNo1" comments (1 year ago)
^ [6] "Rugbier"
^ [7] "disappeared"

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marneus Calgar

Article about a character in the Warhammer 40,000 game. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinh dong

Seems to be hopeful article written by 14 year old. Apparent hoax. Grahame (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google brings up nothing of interest; probably a hoax. -- Mark Chovain 07:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious hoax (i.e, vandalism). The chances that not one but two reality TV shows have run on MTV for several seasons while remaining entirely unmentioned by reliable sources are approximately zero. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here that can be believed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible hoax, not too many fourteen year olds are trusted to record and produce records for any band that's not composed entirely of high school students. In addition, as pointed out above, most of the rest of this article is implausible and there would not appear to be any information anywhere to verify its content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Funny, though. Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 11:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there some sort of archive of this stuff once it's gone that a non-admin can access? --Quartermaster (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. per WP:SNOW Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian muscle syndrome

This is probably a hoax. A google search resulted in zero hits.[38] Prod removed without comment by author. Also, I noticed a typo in the title of the article after I created this page, so I'm going to move the AfD to the appropriate title. If the closing admin would delete the redirect to this AfD under WP:CSD#G6 that would be much appreciated. See [39]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Zero hits on PubMed and Google Scholar. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax as shown by nom and Stevenfrutismaak. Author was an SPA. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August Miklos Friedrich Hermann

No notability per WP:CSD#A7. IndulgentReader (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After all, what has this two-year-old achieved? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not have separate notability, --NellieBly (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever of his parents is considered more notable (they both have articles). Per the way we deal with Brooklyn Beckham and other non-independently notable children of notable people. Ka renjc 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's cute, but he's two. Can always be recreated when/if he does something to achieve notability apart from being conceived by two actors. Re: a re-direct, it's not a likely search term with both middle names. Ghits are by far just first and last. His grandparents have articles too: Miklós Hargitay and Jayne Mansfield. If there is a re-direct I think it makes more sense to redirect to Mariska Hargitay, despite his having his father's last name he's nearly always mentioned in connection with Mom. TravellingCari 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete, or A7, or WP:IAR based on WP:BOLLOCKS, take your pick. No reason to keep this any longer. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J Rogers

Vanity autobiography, fails WP:BIO. None of the claims are verifiable, being linked to blogs, forums and such. Sandstein 06:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient web imprint for this to be a famous bloggist, so notability claim is bogus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete declaring yourself a "cult hero" doesn't make you one. Movingboxes (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity and for failing WP:RS and WP:BIO. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:JediLofty, and also as a failure of WP:COI. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for both reasons given here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic games 2008 conspiracies

Unencyclopedic, unsourced. Don't see how it is possible to improve this article to be in line with Wikipedia rules. If this article is needed, it would be easier to start a new article. Beagel (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd argue WP:ATTACK because of the unsourced accusations against Phelps for cheating. This is an op-ep piece. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copy vio of [40] front page. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Berlin-Tempelhof Airport. The planned closure of this airport is currently a big political issue in Berlin. I conjecture that this article was created as a result of that controversy. Sandstein 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Boettger

Non-notable military figure... was in charge of an airport during WWII, then killed himself... only reference made so far was a link to (and a one line mention in) the Berlin-Tempelhof Airport article, no other sources availabe online... prod was removed with the edit summary "This man was responsible for one great event in Second World War, we should not delete things. Lets wait for some more information about him."... only known for one event means he also fails WP:BIO1E... Adolphus79 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if some better sourcing is found. One great historic event is enough. OneEvent is meant for recent news, for things that will not become history. DGG (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only brief mentions found in one book on the history of American air power. It's an odd story but does not seem to have been in any way militarily significant. The short mention in the other article befits the sourcing which fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What great event? Saving an airport from destruction? Not exactly a pivotal action. And just how did his suicide stop that? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with more material and better sourcing. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berlin-Tempelhof Airport. All the info in this article is already there, at the present time. If someone is able to locate more information about him in the future (I couldn't with a cursory search), then it can always be spun back out as a separate article. I do think it'd have value as a redirect, as a plausible search string in case someone was looking for information on the wartime history of the airport. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berlin-Tempelhof as above. Buckshot06(prof) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. WJBscribe (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Shot at Love: The Hangover

~~Non-notable spinoff - the only ghits are mirrors and tv listings, no "real-world notability from reliable sources". Should be merged into A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila.~~

Withdrawn. I'll merge it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merging does not require an AfD. the wub "?!" 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per SNOW and the PROD contestion that said, t would be hard to improve this article due to the fact that the subject matter is so new and referensing the actual articles would difficult due to the fact that there are very few in existence. Seems to say it all. NFT covers newspapers of questionable existence as well. TravellingCari 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandstone Intelligencer

Patently non-notable. Proposed deletion contested on spurious grounds that notability cannot be established. Ningauble (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unofficial high school student newspaper, founded this year, with hardly any circulation, is unlikely to have garnered coverage in reliable independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV and verifiability issues aside, this is extremely non-notable per WP:N. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90 -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all. -Brougham96 (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, largely trivial contribution to an encyclopedia. Johnrheavner (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bathroom-distributed? So it's.... toilet paper? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - McCart42 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; this could also be classified as patent nonsense. The redirect page Sandstone Intelligencer should be deleted as well.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s

Each individual year of number-one albums listed on this page has been given its own article. Classicrockfan42 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that case because then this is a duplicate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ec) It appears to me that this is just a compilation list of other articles. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no reason we need a full list like this when we have each individual year with it's own article -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe this falls into one of the grounds for deletion. It should be discussed as part of the merge process. It may be that the yearly ones should be merged into the decade's lists instead. Assize (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact that an above comment gives the impression that the individual articles were created before the "compilation" decade articles, this is not the case. The individual articles were only recently created by Classicrockfan42. But I think that this will probably come down to a matter of one going, and since this is the option nominated for deletion, I guess it'll have to go. To have two sets of articles on the same thing is redundant; despite the fact creating individual articles for every single year makes it a little bit more complicated, both types of listings basically do the same thing anyway. Ss112 (Talk here!) 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave no such impression. Personally I think the decades list are better. However, this is Wikipedia, so no page gets priority over the other due to when it is created. Each classification is valid, so the proper process should be a merge discussion, not summary deletion of one valid option. Assize (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, closing this discussion early as consensus to delete per WP:SNOW and obvious misinformation (WP:CSD#3) that was outlined by the contribtuors of this discussion. AngelOfSadness talk 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' King

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lil' King

Subject is non-notable rapper that is full of weasel words and predictions. Most of it is unreferenced and in the future tense or--from what I can tell--outright made up. Google shows me nothing of Lil' King other than the usual myspace stuff. There have been a series of articles by User:Girlsalltheway2009 and User:Livinglifetoothefullest about this artist and related groups, all of which suffer from the same issues. The article The Best King Music Group is completely made up. (That one I have nominated for CSD but, since the prod tags have been removed from other articles in this series (example 1, example 2, example 3, I'll include it here too.) I'll add all of them to this nomination because they all fail WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, and might be vandalism. Girlsalltheway2009 has a stated conflict of interest in the topic. justinfr (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

   :The Kingz Of Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :To Serve & Collect The Way I Was (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Smoking Outside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Best King Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Lil' King discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :On Them Dubbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Recognize Kingz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if this is the place, but they've also created a category and template for this:

   :{{Category:The Kingz Of Nature albums}}
   :{{Template:Lil' King}}

Comment. I should point out that many of the articles have claims of notability. There are, however, no references. Since many of the articles in this series play loose with the facts, I suggest that anything unreferenced is probably untrue. justinfr (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it appears the anonymous IP 24.155.200.56 is selectively inserting references to Lil' King (and somebody named Troy Rodriguez) into other articles (see his contributions for the full list of diffs--basically every one).I suggest this is further evidence of vandalism. The user uses tables and templates quite proficiently, suggesting it's a veteran user not a newbie. I'm going to ~~suggest a checkuser and~~ report him for disruptive editing if this continues. justinfr (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete inclusion of Troy Rodriguez suggests yet another sockpuppet of the guy behind this. JuJube (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're right, the author is a sockpuppet. I've listed them all here. justinfr (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced probable hoax. Movingboxes (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's a list of MTV award nominees, and Lil' King is not among them. The other facts I checked turned up just as false. Huon (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All non-notable, non-verifiable, made up, etc Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders in the Night

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:RS. No coverage of the song. No charts. Delete or redirect to Bark at the Moon. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bark at the Moon (note that "So Tired", the single this was a B-Side on, is also a redirect there) the wub "?!" 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Bark at the Moon per WP:MUSIC#Songs. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bark at the Moon, per The Wub. No need to delete first - deleted articles actually take MORE server space. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This song did chart; according to the (deprecated field in the) infobox, it reached #20 on the UK Singles Chart. If that's true, then maybe this could warrant a keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as has been done to the other songs on this album. Not that I know anything about music, but I see no WP:RS in google news, books and scholar, by which I usually judge, any hits aren't about this particular thing, but other stuff with the same name. [41] [42] [43] Sticky Parkin 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europeade

Fails WP:N, WP:ORG. Google returns nothing of interest. Leonard^(Bloom) 03:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified prediction of a past event. FAIL. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely exists as an international event. See G-hits. Unsure of notability though. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Seems pretty notable, from what I can tell. For example, the president of Latvia conducted the opening ceremonies in 2004. This article described the 2004 version as the "biggest European Traditional Folk Art Festival" ever held in Ireland. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CS and DE versions of the article include more information, including a list of locations for the past 40+ years (and SV has a photo). Be nice if someone could translate that into this page. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, though it definitely needs sources. A Google News search turns up quite a few decent refs to this, and if it's been opened by notable people like the president of Latvia, that's a pretty good indicator. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Tag as CSD (non-admin closure), Recreation of deleted material Leonard^(Bloom) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EgoPHobia

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:ORG. The original author certainly has a COI. Google returns nothing of use. Leonard^(Bloom) 03:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, WP:BLP - we don't need this debate to descend into satire. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Fuentes

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. William's scraper (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent & reliable evidence of notability. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Movingboxes (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This biography of a living person is entirely devoid of reliable sources and it's full of derogatory information. It should not appear on WP. David in DC (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Movingboxes. Tabercil (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until now, I didn't even know there was a WP:PORNBIO. You learn something new every wiki-day. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comments above that she doesn't pass the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. A Google search for 'Monique Fuentes' returns this Wikipedia article as the first hit, which is one indication that she is not widely written about on the web. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep - a temporary merger & redirect is easy enough to set up if any editor feels it is absolutely necessary.. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is It and I Am It and You Are It and So Is That and He Is It and She Is It and It Is It and That Is That

Nice title, but no sources, except for ones verifing that it will be released. Still a ways off release-wise; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS Undead Warrior (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marnie Stern as recommended by WP:MUSIC#Albums. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See Falcon's suggestion above, although I couldn't find the album on the label's website, which lists 2008 releases. Johnrheavner (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [44] This pitchfork thing verifies the track list, release date and a couple of other things, at least. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Falcon or move to shorter title. That is truly ridiculous. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pitchfork Media is certianly a reliable source (Wow, she's really titling her album that? good for Marnie Stern, then) and it does have a release date (7 October) so WP:HAMMER doesn't work here. But could we shorten it like we did to Fiona Apple's mouthful of a second album title or Soulwax's Most of the Remixes (which also has an amusingly superlong title)? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still on the fence for now, but the Pitchfork source is a step in the right direction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (non admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akasaka Sacas

As near as I can tell, this is just a neighborhood recreation center in Tokyo, and there are no reliable sources cited to establish it's notability. I tried to speedy it as a non-notable club, but another editor declined it with the very compelling reason "nope", so here we are. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Akasaka Sacas is a notable facility or an area where the TBS broadcasting center and other relating buildings stand (like Roppongi Hills), and a couple of major events hosted by TBS occur in a special place within the area. It is not like those huge parks where people just gather and do things. Also, I added additional citations for the information on the article to establish notability. --staka (T ・C) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New revision is a completely different article than what was nominated, nom withdrawn. Beeblbrox (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Fullerton

Seems like a minor player in a barely notable event. Google News Archives picks up a bunch false positives, with none pertaining to him. At most, he's a WP:BLP1E. Therefore, Delete. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, he gave a notable person a ride. This is taking the idea of the transference of notability to new heights. Movingboxes (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably, Pete Doherty being released from jail isn't a notable event, so this isn't even WP:BLP1E. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another non- notable music journalist. Tovian (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being an assistant editor isn't really notable, and without a greater publishing history I don't think he meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to WMYX-FM, I chose this target becauseit already had most of the info. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packarena

Only claim is that the song was played on the space shuttle Discovery. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this really takes me back, I have the song back in my head, gah! Pretty much a novelty song popular in Wisconsin at that time which didn't reach Super Bowl Shuffle levels by any means and remained stuck with only popularity in Green Bay, Milwaukee and Madison, despite being transmitted up to space for a wake-up call. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Favre be it from me to pass judgement.... Though just barely a "hit" it seems to be remembered pretty well. There are many more results in Google News Archive for "Packerena" than for "Packarena", which seems to be the official name. There are even a couple of minor Google Books mentions. At worst, merge with 1997 Green Bay Packers season. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article on the Packarena seems to have as much value as say, The Super Bowl Shuffle. I hope I'm participating correctly by editing this page... Winkinblinkinnod 15:17 16 August 2008 (UTC)— Winkinblinkinnod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Though short-lived, it was a phenomenon in the Midwest, and beyond (into space). I think it absolutely ranks as high as the Super Bowl Shuffle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.120.133 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got people saying it's notable, but nobody's proving it. No sources still. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Also, I have filed a request for checkuser for the ip and redlink user above. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to WMYX-FM. Although a lot of the content is already there. As they are the originators of the parody, the content sits better there than it would in the Packers season article. RMHED (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per RMHED. - McCart42 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has more to so with the Packers than the radio station. Don't think a redirect to 1997 Green Bay Packers season is a great idea because its more that just one season. A better idea might be a merge to the general Green Bay Packers or to History of the Green Bay Packers. The Merge is not really the issue because it can be merged into multiple articles. The issue is the redirect. The priority for a redirect should be (1) History of the Green Bay Packers (2) Green Bay Packers (3) WMYX-FM.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to History of the Green Bay Packers, as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 2010

Direct contradiction of WP:CRYSTAL, speculation - only source states it has not been confirmed Fin ©™ 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely exists, but barely could be considered a game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it when the page is gonna be re created again petty soon. Ice (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles based on the fact that they will eventually warrant existing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is really not needed until some game details are released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.209.8 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until there's more to verify about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete We all know EA's gonna make a 2010 (although it might not be named that), but only one source has stated it as confirmed. Overall, delete. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out the source given in the article does not confirm it - it's based on speculation and explicitly says that it's not confirmed. Fin ©™ 07:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too early, cmon. This is just ridiculous. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of those cases were Wikipedia doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But policies and guidelines do not allow for speculation no matter the likelihood of it actually occurring because no one can predict the future with 100% certainty. While the topic and article are harmless, allowing something like this is a slipper slope that can lead to something negative being put up based purely on speculation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment So which NFL team does Tim Tebow play on in 2010? Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'da Bears!! (Sorry, I was required by law to say that.) MuZemike (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine delete it then Ice (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some wine with that cheese? MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay on point. I'm sure Icealien created the article in good faith. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 07:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this is like using a crystal ball to search for another crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete now - creator requested deletion combined with WP:SNOWBALL. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I just want to note that the article should NOT have to go through a deletion review, just require that it have a substantial announcement - ie, a trailer, or coverage on a major news web site or magazine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete — No source. Publisher have not announced the game yet. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rastrapathi Road

Unnotable Indian road. No references or anything that can verify this as notable can be found. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-verifiable. Movingboxes (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It certainly is verifiable, Hyderabad on the Net describes it as one of the main shopping areas of Hyderabad. The alternate spelling Rashtapatri Road turns up references to the same place, and a number of news reports. This AfD needs the attention of a native language speaker or local who can verify the notability or otherwise of this place (as most things in India receive a fraction of the web-coverage that American things do) Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the existence of sources, I'll change my delete to a keep. Movingboxes (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also make my comment a keep. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coming from a native of Hyderabad, India. I agree that the article is in a very bad shape and needs wikifying and a good copy edit. But, it is a notable road in the city. Lack of proper sources in the Indian media, per Mostlyharmless, is the key reason for the article's inability to prove its notability. Mspraveen (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if its a main shopping area of a large city, its notable. We can add information as we find sources.DGG (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] [1] "Picketers"

[2] [2] "dissapeared"

[3] [3]"Pink House"

[4] [4] "BA city"

[5] [5]"Peronist"

[6] First ever mention to the "Argentish" expression on web (before the article had built up by me): see "BubbaNo1" comments (1 year ago)

[7] [6] "Rugbier"

[8] [7] "disappeared"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]