Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 1
< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is clear that WP:BLP1E applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John Dallas Lockhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod / reprod. Prod reason given as: Non-notable criminal, fails WP:BIO also a one event Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Doesn't his listing on America's Most Wanted suffice to prove notability? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Probs notable, if more than a bit scary... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he was listed on FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives or the AMW Dirty Dozen then that would prove notability. Current sources show this to be a one time deal. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. He got national attention as a fugitive, but attention comes from the criminal justice system after he was captured. Heinous crimes, but the enduring interest isn't there. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT no enduring interest JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angel Pantoja Medina (Standing Wake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notable for only one event seems to apply here - even though the event is post-death. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are plenty of other people with weird requests for what people should do after their death. I don't think this particular one is off-the-wall enough to be remembered in a few years time. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a BIO1E with a single burst of news coverage at the event. Unusual but not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, an mildly unusual piece of news with no obvious long-term importance. If this event changes the way future wakes are held, then it would warrant an article, but there's no evidence of this. Somno (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS - lacks any lasting importance. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Navjot Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Page was speedy deleted as A7 (biography with no assertion of notability), but enough concerns were raised about the close at DRV that it is better to have a full discussion here at AfD. Concern is failure to demonstrate notability through independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wp:n I can show you where to buy his books, but I can't show you anyone that has written anything about them or him, that passes wp:rs. Not a speedy candidate (imo) but there is plenty of peacock terms and such in the article that if it was kept, it would need cleaning up with a butcher knife. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no evidence that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per established consensus interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL as it applies to future elections. Note that this doesn't preclude much of the article's current content being deleted as OR. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Crystal ball time! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait I heard that Scott Vyka is running for governer of California in 2010, why not this? Just kidding, delete under crystal ball. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article: there's a source, but this is essentially like an article on the 2040 Olympics: really virtually nothing can be said yet. By the way, this is posted twice on the AFD page; nom please remove one. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As is customary, the politicians and consequently the news sources start talking about one election as soon as the previous one is over, if not before. This has two references already. One blog, one newspaper. DGG (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do what you want, but if you're going to delete this article shouldn't you also delete these other ones?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_gubernatorial_election,_2010
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2010
Alcarinquë (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, delete - "The following candidates have not formally expressed any intent to run for Governor of Minnesota in 2010 but their candidacy is possible." Unsourced speculation, crystal balletry at its worst. When come back bring substantive coverage in multiple sources. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, do what you want, but the almost all of the other articles list only possible candidates, too, so should they not also be deleted? Alcarinquë (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the forum to be discussing the other similar articles. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Strong precedent that we start tracking future elections once reliable sources are available has been met. No crystal ball is needed to tell us that this election will take place and any legitimate issues of content questioned by nominator should be addressed within the article and is not a valid argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is an election that will take place and there already is press circulating about it. Personally, I have to say "ugh" because I think it's too early, but oh well...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs some cleaning up, but that's not a reason to delete it. It just needs some work, and in the future will have much more information. There is a strong tradition of creating articles for known future events such as elections and sporting events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Precedent seems to be that the next scheduled election in any jurisdiction is not crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glory farm - Bicester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Orphan article, no references. I'm not quite sure I understand what it's talking about. It seems to be a comparison of various opinions about this place. There are too many unreferenced weasel words for this to be a meaningful encyclopedia article. —Bkell (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bicester, none of the information in the article is sourced or written in an encyclopaedic tone. Reliably sourced information on the housing estate (?) could be added to the article on the town it's in, if appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the current article fails naming conventions. If you want to redirect, please redirect Glory farm instead. - Mgm|(talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability, no real content or sources.--Grahame (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems like WP:OR. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bicester, trimming length substantially. MY guess is that this is a housing estate, which needs at most one sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to expansion of references. The article still needs a lot of work to establish why the book is notable, though.
- Adventures Of Cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Book appears to be non-notable; nothing in the article asserts notability. One review by a site that is little more than a blog, one review by an industry-specific journal, and one review that seems relatively trustworthy isn't really enough to satisfy notability per WP:BK, I think. [ roux ] [x] 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: School Library Journal passes WP:NOTABILITY because it is independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it not assert notability when it has two WP:RS? Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already said on my talkpage, the simple fact of a review is not enough to establish notability. Many tens of thousands of books/movies/songs are reviewed each year, and only a small percentage of them are notable, for a variety of reasons: notability of author, notability of sales figures, controversies, movie deals, etc etc etc. [ roux ] [x] 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are reliable sources that show notability because it is significant coverage. If they get reviewed by a WP:RS, it is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is according to WP:NOTABILITY. There is no guideline or policy that says that reviews aren't allowed. Stop making up rules.Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable authors only make books notable if the author is historically significant and sales figures does not show notability per WP:BK. So you just made up three rules. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're kind of missing the point of what I said. I'm sure others will come along and comment. [ roux ] [x] 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see articles get kept because they have reviews all the time. I get your point, it's just that your point goes against the rules. Schuym1 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. Don't get bogged down in black-letter 'but this is what rules say'; instead look at the spirit of what they intend. [ roux ] [x] 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR blah blah blah. All three sources seem reliable to me. We'll see what others think. Stop discussing this with me because you already made your point. I am done discussing it with you.Schuym1 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. Don't get bogged down in black-letter 'but this is what rules say'; instead look at the spirit of what they intend. [ roux ] [x] 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see articles get kept because they have reviews all the time. I get your point, it's just that your point goes against the rules. Schuym1 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're kind of missing the point of what I said. I'm sure others will come along and comment. [ roux ] [x] 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable authors only make books notable if the author is historically significant and sales figures does not show notability per WP:BK. So you just made up three rules. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is according to WP:NOTABILITY. There is no guideline or policy that says that reviews aren't allowed. Stop making up rules.Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as noted by Schuym, this is notable because of the multiple reliable sources; if nom doesn't think that this is sufficient, s/he can bring this up at WP:NOTABILITY. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Book reviews give the journalist's opinion on the quality of a book. The reviews don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject. They basically fail the non-trivial part the notability guideline mentions. = Mgm|(talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it trivial? WP:BK allows reviews so that means that WP:NOTABILITY allows reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BK allows it because it is not trivial therefore WP:NOTABILITY allows it because it says multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial means that something is mentioned in passing. Schuym1 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BK allows it because it is not trivial therefore WP:NOTABILITY allows it because it says multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it trivial? WP:BK allows reviews so that means that WP:NOTABILITY allows reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per established notability of subject. Any review, is an opinion... an educated opinion... about the subject being reviewed. Per WP:NB/"other considerations, one can then understand that a review of a children's picture book will likely not be longer than the book itself. Per WP:GNG, souces should be considered in context with the subject being sourced. Inclusion in a "list" of children's books would be trivial, however, and as supplied, multiple reviews specific to the book itself are not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lil'Playboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
References all go to Birdman not Lil'Playboy. No proof he is sign to Cash Money Records Yung dre 59 23:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This artist fails to meet WP:MUSIC's basic criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basically a vanity page.Czolgolz (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. [Phlyght] 11:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Vyka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable politician writing his own article in an overly promotional manner. No references for verification outside Myspace. Vanispamcruftisement. Perhaps the only Gubernatorial candidate to recieve zero hits on Google news. Themfromspace (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: an obvious one --Kickstart70TC 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy A7 was denied so I took it to AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Although generally anyone running for a high profile public office would have notability, I can't find one reliable source that even states he is running for office (Myspace is not a RS). Delete, per WP:RS or lack thereof. DigitalNinja 22:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't ever see a day when you can speedy delete a political candidate, too much potential for abuse. In this case, it would seem that since he has had no significant coverage, so AFD is the right place anyway. He is is seeking the nomination of the Republican Party in 2010, so maybe between now and then he will get notable. But he's not today. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted Contrary to Pharmboy's claim, I believe that this was a fine candidate for deletion as G11, blatant advertising: as noted by the nominator, this was apparently written by the candidate, and as such there was no advertising-free version to which we could revert. No question that this guy passed A7, but that's not the only criterion for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 3103 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a non-notable number. (I should perhaps remark that some numbers are notable, e.g. 1729). A PROD was removed by another editor saying "No need to prod, just redirect to the right article" and redirecting it to 3000 (number), which contains a list of 112 notable numbers in the range 3000 - 3999; however, 3103 is not one of that list. This article's problem is that there is nothing of interest to say about its subject, and redirecting to an article which also has nothing to say about the subject seems pointless. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note. This article meets criteria for speedy deletion. I'll template it. DigitalNinja 22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on a lack of reasonable rationale for it to remain, and no reasonable rationale given to keep or redirect. I don't see an actual "claim of notability" that needs verifying, but I am not sure what criteria a number fits under if you tried to speedy it. (ie: don't think it will fly) Still not notable that I can see. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reason it is particularly notable. I don't know why it was created in the first place. Oh well, remove it. DavidWS (contribs) 23:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for complete lack of content. Anything about the numbers used in accounting should go into accounting articles. - Mgm|(talk) 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the Number notability guidelines --Flewis(talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything that wouldn't be better in a different article anyway (eg. 3103 Eger, ISO 3103). I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the bit in the article regarding its use as a POST number for a bank account. Anything interesting there? Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no worthwhile information to warrant an article. As far as I can see the comment about the POST number is rather less than interesting: any accounting package will use codes (generally four-digit) to represent all the various places that money and will be flowing within an accounting system. Apparently in whatever the package the article creator uses, 3103 is the bank account. This is far from standard (in the package I use it happens to be 6480, which is equally arbitrary), so I don't think it counts as any kind of notable use of the number. ~ mazca t|c 12:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rogoż. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rogoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unneeded disambiguation as all of the villages listed are "redlinked". Tavix (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is still useful, if it can be verified that the villages exist (sometimes a place can appear in a database as a "village", when it is only a building such as a farm). A search on Google Maps only finds one, the village in Bihor County, and the unesco.org site mentions a church in Rogoz, Maramureş County, so at least two of them are villages. I don't know whether these places are notable enough for separate articles but if someone looks for information about one of them, this page will at least identify the possible places (also, there is a page for Rogoż, which is linked as a hatnote). —Snigbrook 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone looks for one of the redlinked villages, chances are they already know more about the place than we do. - Mgm|(talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the Polish village: a disambiguation page without any blue links, even if there are undoubtedly multiple notable subjects with the same name, is useless. Nothing wrong with recreating (indeed, something wrong with not recreating) when an article on one or more of the Romanian villages is written. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. The pages on disambiguation clearly state it must point out blue links. - Mgm|(talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate in wiktionary, if anything. Though I am not sure of notability even for that. Kickstart70TC 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: on a related note, I could use a hand developing Wikipedia talk:Notability (restaurants) into something useful for determining restaurant notability. --Kickstart70TC 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree. This isn't even a stub article and notability is indeed an issue, as well. Wiktionary is a good place for it. Geoff (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of widespread use of this neologism (I could only find one reviewer using it, and that's just because he apparently doesn't like the term "gastropub"). Somno (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshall Field V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person who only only known as being a great-great-grandson of Marshall Field. Tavix (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now: Although the article needs to be cleaned up and have references added, there is plenty of information in it to indicate that Marshall Field V has achieved notable things on his own. If the article isn't expanded in the near future, I'd possibly support a delete, but it seems premature at this point. Shsilver (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COPYVIO?? Isn't this a clear WP:COPYVIO of this bio? It doesn't look like they are scraping data from here, so I'm thinking this is a speedy delete candidate if I am right. I won't take action, would rather someone else verify my claim before such a drastic measure. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 '70s assertion notwithstanding, no actual evidence of its existence - let alone notability - exists; it seems like vandalism to me and to those opining below. Frank | talk 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strangle hump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No WP:Notability found, though "That 70's Show" reference may be assertion. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I doubt they did that on The 70s show. Vandalism? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: Hoax! --Kickstart70TC 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: Likely Hoax DavidWS (contribs) 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant vandalism. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Snowy Delete Brrr. vandalism. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unelected candidate in local elections in Barnsley. Nothing in the article indicates notability - the closest it gets is that he obtained the largest number of votes in 2008. What this actually means is that he was the BNP's highest vote winner in the town, i.e. he lost. Emeraude (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails all tests in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely unsourced, notability not verified, and per Rodhullandemu. — Realist2 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being that party's best loser in one local council election doesn't seem notable. Qwfp (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most local politicians are NN. He may have been the most notable BNP member locally, but that does not prevent his being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 3 Deep (group). Would help if there was content to merge so a redirect it is. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mouse (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This producer does not appear to be notable and fails WP:BIO due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to 3 Deep (group). I agree that he as a producer and individual seems to have only gained trivial coverage (even in the press release that turned up), but since he is part of the apparently notable band 3 Deep (group) he should be merged there. --AmaltheaTalk 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to 3 Deep (group) seems like a good solution to me as well. Raven1977 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to 3 Deep. The producer doesn't appear notable in their own right. [Phlyght] 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits#Devil Gundam. Merger at editorial discretion. Sandstein 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DG Cells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the G Gundam article. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect As part of the cleanup of Mobile Fighter G Gundam, I've been trying to figure out exactly what to do with this article. The article does fail WP:NOT#PLOT and I reasonably sure that there is no real-world information that can be added to the article to allow it to pass WP:FICT or WP:NOTE. There is no where particular to merge any of the information either. The question focuses on how likely it is as a search term. The best solution would be to redirect it to List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits#Devil Gundam and add a brief mention of the DG Cells in the list entry's description. --Farix (Talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits#Devil Gundam.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this relisted when there was already a pretty clear consensus to redirect or merge? Just do the redirect already and allow anyone who might be interested to use the edit history to do any more merging. DHowell (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nominator closure). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Woolgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I've never heard of chessboxing. Does it even exist? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Quick Keep Yes, and the Chess boxing article has been on Wikipedia since 2005, and mentions him. This article needs sourcing, but you might should have looked just a little bit before jumping into AFD with this one. To quote another source "In Chess Boxing you have to either checkmate or knock out your rival". It is very real. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a couple of sources I found from a quick googling of "chess boxing" "Tim Woolgar". PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to chessboxing. This individual is the founder of the UK chessboxing club (see this BBC article). He has received some coverage about being "the UK’s first unofficial heavyweight champion...of Chessboxing." He also written an article on ChessBase.com about winning the tournament. Merge because he is the champion of a notable sport but hasn't received enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In retrospect, that would be fine with me as well, and if it growns into a full article, that is another day. It is small at this time, I was just a bit shocked at the nom when the parent article has been here for years and easy to source. An odd game, absolutely, but very verifiable. I'm sure it was in good faith and he likely rushed into AFD because it sounded crazy (it does, and it is) and didn't research it. If nom agreed, he could simply change it to a redirect, then withdraw. Or not. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand First, the nom violates WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and ironically the thing the nom never heard of was linked to. You could have just read through that article to familiarize yourself with the subject. I think the nomination should be reworded. As for the article, the person seems notable enough, but major expansion is necessary. Maybe something like the man's accomplishments in the realm of chessboxing and beyond would be good. Notability should be asserted more. AcroX 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There may be few sources, but the sources we do have cover the entire article, and being the first champion in a sport makes someone notable (but only slightly moreso than just being a champion). - Mgm|(talk) 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GetSome Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:COI (user Getsome Entertainment) and WP:N failed. (Where are our verifiable, reliable sources?) Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Notability not even asserted and certainly not substantiated by WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CORP. No reliable sources are in the article. Schuym1 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:V. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 From now on, I'm going to quit listing mall articles at AfD and just pitch them to Eastmain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Valley Mall (Harrisonburg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to be a notable mall. No real sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, I must put my hat in the delete column at this time. The nominator is very active in these areas, and so if he's nominating, I'm inclined to agree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did withdraw a lot of them, thanks to Eastmain finding sources out the yin yang. Maybe he'll save this one too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but find sources or merge If sources can be found, absolutely keep. In my book, any Simon mall is notable (nationwide chain), as long as there is any little bit of coverage (and probably, there is). Otherwise, merge. DavidWS (contribs) 23:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this turns out to be kept, someone should get rid of some of those section headers, those sections are too short. - Mgm|(talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Rasmus. Sandstein 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hay and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Edit: perhaps the group's page could remain, as it looks as though a bit of work has gone into it, but maybe the other surrounding pages could be merged?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Rasmus. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect. To be notable it needs to meet at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Since the band meets criterion #6 "contains at least one notable musician." (formed in 2003 by the bass player Eero Heinonen), the only thing that warrants discussion is if we should keep or redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. fish&karate 11:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gold Mercury International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a non-notable organisation. As far as I can see all it does is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award... Cameron Scott (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This organization exists since 1961. It's not your run of the mill award-giver. They seem to vet the winners carefully. And they are independent from the people who receive the awards. Has anyone tried to find pre-internet sources about them. They might prove useful. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a notable organization. It is listed in many directories of Think Tanks (see this, for instance). all it does is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award—this is a weak argument. After all this is also applicable to Norwegian Nobel Institute and Norwegian Nobel Committee: all they do is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award. Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete no reliable sources establishing notability. This should have been speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment response to ruslik: I just checked the Norwedigna Nobel Institute article. That also deserves deletion since it, just like this article, is unsourced and non-notable. Feel free to nominate. The argument that one bad article belongs on wikipedia because there are other bad articles on wikipedia is never persuasive.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article is bad, does not mean it should be deleted. It should be improved. By the way, if Norwedigna Nobel Institute is not notable, Nobel Peace Prize is not notable too. :) Ruslik (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment let me be clear. The reasons for deletion are: no reliable sources, no established notability. Writing like an angel won't fix that.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I remain convinced this is spam and I see no improvement in sourcing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Because no one is trying. :( I'm not doing it because I don't have access to the newspaper databases that could turn up sources, but why isn't anyone else? It's easy to call for deletion because the article lacks sources, it's a lot harder to actually try to find any. Deletion is just the easy way out. - Mgm|(talk) 00:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the good faith, I *did* look for sources and I *do* have access to such sources. Next time don't assume your fellow editors are too lazy to do any legwork - ask them instead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the organization might meet WP:CORP, but there is enough spam to make Hormel and Monty Python ecstatic. Too much in the promotion department, very little in substance that is supported by citations from reliable sources independent of the organization. If there is to be an article on Gold Mercury International, this isn't it. It doesn't need a complete rewrite - it needs to be scraped clean and started anew... and only if the organization truly meets WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn Where were all these sources when I went looking? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Toxic Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- An Overdose of Death... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No sources found, band's website is dead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These sources? [1], [2], [3], [4].--Michig (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- or these? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There's also a full-page feature in the November 2008 issue of Terrorizer. So it's a strong as possible Keep for me, even if their website is currently down.--Michig (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Michig. Seems a slightly strange nomination, given the number of sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. A google search alone reveals plenty of reliable sources, and the dead link to the official site doesn't worry me. Webhost providers have trouble all the time and even if that wasn't the case, a band not having an official website, is not a valid reason to delete the article. - Mgm|(talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete under A1. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hub hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. The article has also been tagged for speedy under criterion A5. The article says it all, why it should be deleted and not transwikied: "Very uncommon" neologism. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't be a dicdef as no one uses the term, so NEO it is. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - As SD tagger. Not notable, and certainly too short.
— Ceranthor (Sing) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1) by Nyttend. NAC. Cliff smith talk 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mislav Leko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was rejected for Speedy. Has no actual textual information other than stats, which are "0". New article with no sources or actual content. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 20:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Isn't there some guideline that states articles only comprising of infoboxes can be deleted? I think they should be speediable. - Mgm|(talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's enough to look up. I don't know soccer that well, but I can't find an indication that he actually played a game for the senior teams listed for him per WP:ATHLETE. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted under A1: there's plenty of precedent for articles with nothing but infoboxes being deleted. For example, see the log for Ohio State Route 245: this and many other Ohio road articles were deleted some time ago, despite being judged notable, because they had nothing but infoboxes. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Survivor. Sandstein 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sciona Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Outside from finishing in 2nd place in Australian Survivor, she has done nothing that asserts notability. The article consists of only a rundown of her actions during the final episode. Sam Blab 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable Survivor contestant. Aside from the winners and two-time players, it is generally been a consensus to delete articles of survivor contestants that are not notable for anything else outside the show because of WP:1E. Tavix (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought redirecting was the general concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn, fails WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. It discourages recreation and points people who search the name to an appriopriate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Australian Survivor, all information one could reasonably want is already there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. non notable. personally don't think it's even worth a redirect. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Australian Survivor per Lankiveil (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cybertron. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Iacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability tagged since June 2007. Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which links to sunglasses retailer Iacon (which operates 40 US mall-based stores). There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of Iacon on the fictional planet Cybertron and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Certainly not notable but it can be merged to Cybertron.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge A city in a fictional universe isn't very likely to give scholar or news links and it's probably not suitable to have a separate article, but Skywalker is right, it is very mergeable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge sourced content; if not enough there to make it worthwhile, Redirect. No out-of-universe notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the Transformers franchise is huge, and has existed in many different types of media across several generations. Wikipedia is full of in-universe concepts, and there's nothing wrong with that. The lack of scholarly sources is not surprising. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. At least redirect Iacon to Cybertron and merge some of the text. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Create article for the retailer and then leave a hatnote at the top. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect per consensus above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is no notability policy. If you knew anything about the Transformers franchise, you would know that this fictional city is notable for being the home of the Autobots. I'd like to know what third-party sources Suntag considers to have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. If the article is not kept, it can still be merged into Cybertron. --Pixelface (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Judaism and Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced original essay of dubious encyclopeicity which is not even correctly related to its title. All information (arbitrarily collected under this title) is already present in wikipedia elsewhere. `'Míkka>t 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- There is another related article present, Jewish left, which discusses relation between the two mentioned entities. The article provides pretty much the same information in bits and pieces. LeaveSleaves talk 19:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the topics are close, but please look at the title: it suggests the article is not about leftist/communist Jews, starting from Karl Marx, but rather to be about juxtaposition of two worldviews: Judaism and Communism. I don't recall any scholarly sources that provide such research. `'Míkka>t 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your point on need of required scholarly sources. And quite frankly, the article doesn't even clarify what its purpose is. My suggestion was aimed at the fact that someone simultaneously searching for both Judaism and communism could be redirected to Jewish left. And the target article does talk about influence of communism and related ideologies on Jews.
- Also, I notice you hadn't notified the creator. I've gone ahead and done that. Let us see what his/her views are. LeaveSleaves talk 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is the kind of article that needs scholarly sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: undefined context (what is the subject of the article?), unreferenced collection of remotely connected bits of trivia. The latter is manageable, but if the article is reduced literally to the relationship between Judaism (religion) and Communism (socioeconomic structure: as defined in wikipedia article), then the only thing remaining is "communism (structure) denies any religion, Judaism included"; details of anti-religious campaigns in the former East Bloc are already provided elsewhere. Apparently author of Judaism and Communism is not prepared to consolidate all this info into a comprehensive article. NVO (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing in this article that could not be settled in other, more suitable articles. --Miacek (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank and Redirect to Jewish left. POV-trap article that needs to be put into context. Regular editors of "Jewish left" may be able to make use of the revision history. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. This is a clear violation of WP:NOR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The creator of the article obviously has no real grasp of Judaism, which is a religion, if he connects it via the title, as he does with atheistic and anti-religious Communism that also violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. IZAK (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the topic is real true and fascinating i hope and wish somebody would have the time and energy to collect the sources to render it valuable for our project--YY (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: withdrawn by nom. Rodhullandemu 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask for More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Almost all unsourced and lacks notability. It has not charted, no music video, no critical analysis. The music itself is not discussed, only the pepsi aspect. — Realist2 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Article is now verified by several third party sources, no longer a need for deletion, notability has been established, albeit not in terms of the actual music. — Realist2 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Qucik google check confirms the facts. I added a reference. More exist. Notability is in place: work of a wildly notable person. `'Míkka>t 19:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You added a fan site as a source, I had to revert you, please don't use fan sites or blogs. Cheers. — Realist2 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim that it is not notable rests on the fact that information regarding its release oustide of fansites is difficult to source, especially since the single was released in the late 90's before the popularity of the internet. However, the each and every release of this rare promo item has been sourced complete with reference numbers, and the item even has its own custom cover. It is definitely notable especially when the main biography of the singer in question does mention her work with Pepsi. Reqluce (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the info cannot be sourced by reliable third party sources then the info should be removed. We don't report the truth, we report what is verifiable. — Realist2 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned and currently proven on the article, all releases of the song are sourced by a 3rd party. "We don't report the truth, we report what is verifable". Report it then.Reqluce (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Track lists are not enough to warrant an article. The other info needs sourcing from a reliable place. Otherwise it does not fall within the Music criteria. — Realist2 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently one source other than the tracklist on the article. But obviously it would be so much easier to slap citation requests and nominate articles for deletion as opposed to looking for 3rd party sources. Doesn't really matter when its not your own article or interest now does it. Oh wait, I guess that's not "verifiable" either. Reqluce (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't breach WP:NPA, you do it enough already, stop. I appreciate you created this article but there is no need for that tone. — Realist2 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What. Ever.Reqluce (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't breach WP:NPA, you do it enough already, stop. I appreciate you created this article but there is no need for that tone. — Realist2 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently one source other than the tracklist on the article. But obviously it would be so much easier to slap citation requests and nominate articles for deletion as opposed to looking for 3rd party sources. Doesn't really matter when its not your own article or interest now does it. Oh wait, I guess that's not "verifiable" either. Reqluce (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Track lists are not enough to warrant an article. The other info needs sourcing from a reliable place. Otherwise it does not fall within the Music criteria. — Realist2 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned and currently proven on the article, all releases of the song are sourced by a 3rd party. "We don't report the truth, we report what is verifable". Report it then.Reqluce (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the info cannot be sourced by reliable third party sources then the info should be removed. We don't report the truth, we report what is verifiable. — Realist2 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point. Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable, even though it should. - Mgm|(talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope that adds some detail. — Realist2 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now that I have sorted the "lack of sources", the only reason why this article is nominated for deletion is because Realist2 feels it is "not notable", even though the whole basis of his nomination falls on the "lack of sources". Editor Míkka has already stated "Notability is in place: work of a wildly notable person." and fellow Editor MacGyverMagic concurs. That's 3 against 1 to KEEP this article. Reqluce (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's last 5 days usually and Mgm has not expressed an opinion other than my intro needed more detail. — Realist2 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of " While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point" does not mean that the user Mgm agrees that my point that the article IS notable? Reqluce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He/she sais "Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable" and then I expanding the intro per his/her suggestion. — Realist2 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like selective reading. Mgm says " While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point" BEFORE''' "Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable". It is painfully obvious that Mgm agrees with my point that the article IS notable, and anyone who can read the whole page in English can see that.Reqluce (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He/she sais "Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable" and then I expanding the intro per his/her suggestion. — Realist2 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of " While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point" does not mean that the user Mgm agrees that my point that the article IS notable? Reqluce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's last 5 days usually and Mgm has not expressed an opinion other than my intro needed more detail. — Realist2 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said he has a point, I referred to: "Your claim that it is not notable rests on the fact that information regarding its release oustide of fansites is difficult to source". It might not have been completely clear, but I indeed wanted Realist2 to expand on their reasoning before I made a judgement on the nomination's merit. - Mgm|(talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to "it has not charted" : The single was released as PROMOTIONAL record, with no commercial pressing, and therefore not eligible to chart. Back in the 1990s, there was no airplay or digital download chart, but it is still part of Jackson's work.
In reponse to "no music video" : The song was recorded as part of an ADVERTISEMENT, with the video available on YouTube [1] It was never released as a full length music video, but it is still part of Jackson's work. In response to "no critical analysis" : Again this was a PROMOTIONAL record designed for as part of an AD CAMPAIGN. Promo records such as these are NOT given to Music Journalists or reviewed as part of their work. Just because there are no "verifiable" links to "critical analysis" does not mean this piece of work by an internationally known artist is not notable.Reqluce (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And notability is not inherent either. Just because someone very famous made i that does not mean it is notable. — Realist2 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still its 3 who want to KEEP the article and just 1 who wants it deleted.Reqluce (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not deleted or kept via a majority vote, but are deleted if there is a rough consensus by the users to do so. Read WP:DEL. MuZemike (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still its 3 who want to KEEP the article and just 1 who wants it deleted.Reqluce (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And notability is not inherent either. Just because someone very famous made i that does not mean it is notable. — Realist2 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think we can apply WP:MUSIC here quite easily. I quote:
- "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article meets this. Several reliable independant sources are included.
- "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Janet Jackson is considered notable and I would consider her to be sufficiently notable to include all her work as per a similar guideline in WP:BK.
- "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (underline mine) This is a general guideline which specifically mentions exceptions. This article can be considered an exception due to the sources included.
- "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." The majority of the article is something other than tracklisting information, so this part of the guideline doesn't apply. - Mgm|(talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, in full knowledge that my position might be given less weight as an anonymous editor. The arguments detailed by Mgm above are strong and uncontestable, as they materialize the claim of notability of this recording through WP:MUSIC. There is, however, an aspect that has not been mentioned until now, and that is used by the submitter as further argument towards deletion. I quote: "The music itself is not discussed, only the pepsi (sic) aspect." Far from an argument in favor of deletion, this is a strong reason to keep it, which joins those made before by other editors. Ask for More was a highly notable commercial campaign for a major company that would continue for years, and which eventually recruited artists as Robbie Williams and Britney Spears, among others. This music piece and its associated recording were its cornerstone and launching act, aired in at least dozens of countries throughout four continents. Hence, it also belongs in Category:Advertising campaigns, as part of a highly successful, international commercial campaign for one of the leading and best known soft drink producing companies in the world. 84.123.128.24 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure), the nominator has withdrawn and there are no other expressed delete opionions. Icewedge (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Teyana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NM, fails musicians' criteria; not enough substantial coverage from third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per sources.[reply]
- Did you google this?- Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep multiple sources to establish notability:
- Rodriguez, Jayson (March 10, 2008). "Kid Sister, Teyana Taylor Usher In A New Wave Of Female MCs". MTV.com
- Hugugnin, Patrick (March 15, 2008). "Teyana Taylor is hip hop's next big thing and she has the clothes to prove it". Daily News.
- Mirchandani, Raakhee (April 28, 2008)."TINY TEYANA IS LIVIN' LARGE". New York Post.
- Johnson, Ben (August 1, 2008). "Tonight's best live bet: Teyana Taylor @ Family Life Center". Staten Island Advance.
- I will try to get around to adding these too the article someday. Icewedge (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are clearly enough reliable sources to peruse. - Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/test/vandalism) After a manual translation I came to the conclusion the machine translation was solid and a clear case for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kay Kriesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be in German Paste (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't it be translated before an AfD decision is made? I have tagged with notenglish, and machine translation [10] was inconclusive as to the merits of the content. gnfnrf (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Translates rougly as: "Kay Kriesel Selfappointed rebel and from Germany. Has recognized the signs of the time and fights against the Illuminati. Has also recognized that there are only spectator's democracies. Holds all governments worldwide for corrupt and dishonest. Sees that all that what by the policy and the television media comes only one is: Sound and smoke. Long live the autonomy!!!" SpitfireTally-ho! 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the translationSpitfireTally-ho! 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- What I was saying above is that I can't tell if the translation's apparent lack of credibility is a fault of the article, or a fault of the machine translator, and I'd like to wait for a German speaker to translate the article (or a reasonable time to pass, as per the notenglish template.) gnfnrf (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I see where your coming from, I "withdraw" my comment for now, but it will return in a few days (even if no german translator has turned up) or if arguments here sway me SpitfireTally-ho! 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was saying above is that I can't tell if the translation's apparent lack of credibility is a fault of the article, or a fault of the machine translator, and I'd like to wait for a German speaker to translate the article (or a reasonable time to pass, as per the notenglish template.) gnfnrf (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a native German speaker, but I am pretty good with it. Good enough to know that the machine translation was pretty accurate. Together with the copyright notice at the bottom, that is sufficient reason to speedy delete A7. - Mgm|(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Upcoming Telenovelas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:NOTDIR; this is basically TV Guide for a specific subset of TV shows. [ roux ] [x] 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. Additionally, the last column, projected finale, would be original research. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. This is a current TV listing, a clear violation of WP:NOT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We're Not a TV Guide and this list is clearly slanted towards promotion of Televisa programs over all others like those produced by Venevision and TV Azteca. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Schuym1 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7) by Nyttend. NAC. Cliff smith talk 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of twin towns in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
To avoid confusion with the Republic of Macedonia JB82c 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I honestly see how this can be helpful to anyone. Indiscriminate list, and unencyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Nominator, how did you think we can confuse this entry with the Republic of Macedonia? - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - organised, discriminate. TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow. If we were limited to the original nomination this would be a speedy keep -- I don't understand the policy considerations expressed in "avoid confusion with the Republic of Macedonia". However, the followup by Tavix raises some points that are legitimate questions. The subject of Sister cities is encyclopedic, and this is part of an ongoing project. I can understand the concern that this might look like an indisciminate list, although I see it as a list of nine towns, along with the (discriminating) information about the ties that each town has through S.C.I. to towns in other nations. For those who are interested in the "twinning" of cities, the information is helpful; admittedly, it's not of interest to everyone, nor does it need to be. Mandsford (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as duplicate of List of twin towns in the Republic of Macedonia (at best redirect). Biruitorul Talk 21:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see where Mandsford is coming from, but in reality, the nom was referring to another, older article, List of twin towns in the Republic of Macedonia which duplicates the same information Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted: as noted by Biruitorul, this is a duplicate of "List...in the Republic of Macedonia". The nom created the article and listed it here just three minutes later, with no other person ever editing it; as such, it's a fine candidate for author-requested speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennifer Smith (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article was recently recreated based on a new source being available and used as a reference. This seems to partially deal with the issues brought up in the previous AfD (hence I didn't tag it as a G4 candidate) but I still do not think that the article's subject meets the inclusion criteria. The one additional source is from a local newspaper ([11]) which doesn't really show the level of reliable sourcing required by the general notability criteria or the specific criteria for people . I have not been able to find any other reliable sources which could be used to provide verifiable information for the article and the general content of the one local newspaper source (which was published two days) ago seems to indicate that none are likely to exist to be found (first solo show, local gallery). Guest9999 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & last time - now with her first solo show in a "tack center" - selling saddles etc, no? Still non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm "LuCille Tack" is the person that the Center for the Arts was named after.[12] Horses/saddles have nothing to do with it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IMHO not ready for an encyclopedia....Modernist (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kronom K-D2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This fictional watch does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Undue weight and detail. This gizmo is nothing like Doctor Who's Sonic screwdriver and therefore does not warrant a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many articles categorised as fictional objects in wikipedia that are only notable within the context of their fictional series (novels, gamebooks, movies or computer games). The Kronom K-D2 played a central role in the plots of the novel series, of which individual books of the series are created in wikipedia. Unlike fictional gadgets of James Bond movies which also have their own entries in wikipedia, the Kronom K-D2 made its appearance consistently in each installment of the series, revealing new functions in each story, providing key functions for the protagonists, as well as played a central role in the over-arching storyline : the "overarching" storyline where the heroes and the ultimate villain were equipped with the same "secret weapons". Snowybeagle (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's truly important to the series it can be merged. The parent article is still very short. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about redirect to main article then? I have merged the info, but leave the entry for the fictional object/technology categorisation. Will this work? Snowybeagle (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's truly important to the series it can be merged. The parent article is still very short. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many articles categorised as fictional objects in wikipedia that are only notable within the context of their fictional series (novels, gamebooks, movies or computer games). The Kronom K-D2 played a central role in the plots of the novel series, of which individual books of the series are created in wikipedia. Unlike fictional gadgets of James Bond movies which also have their own entries in wikipedia, the Kronom K-D2 made its appearance consistently in each installment of the series, revealing new functions in each story, providing key functions for the protagonists, as well as played a central role in the over-arching storyline : the "overarching" storyline where the heroes and the ultimate villain were equipped with the same "secret weapons". Snowybeagle (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book series it appears in is not independent. _Mgm|(talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has no reliable sources whatsoever, other than being a gizmo mentioned in novels by one writer, so fails to demonstrate notability. The article is basically in-universe original research. Edison (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles Henry Flacke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Likely an overzealous genealogist. (I'm sympathetic, really I am, but...) jengod (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm getting zero hits on Google for this man, and while the sources are sound, this seems to be original research. Furthermore, sources only prove that he exists and in no way satisfies WP:BIO. DARTH PANDAtalk 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you can really on Google hits when discussing someone from the 19th century. This should probably be looked at by the military wikiproject to get some expert opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I agree that ghits cannot be genuinely used for a 19th century military man, the whole page reeks of WP:OR. DARTH PANDAtalk 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. It cites the national archives as the source of the text. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I was mistaken with my WP:OR tag, but my previous WP:BIO tag still stands and my position remains the same. DARTH PANDAtalk 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As author, please let me attest this is ALL original research! I will defer to the wiki denizens on the notability issue. This one of four intial forays I made into Wiki over past year. I'd be very interested in feedback on two of my other articles I have contributed to significantly: William Capps and Camp Patrick Henry --Mpdc100 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First and formost, you do NOT want to declare this as Original Research. I think both you and me were mistaken about what OR means. Anyways, both William Capps and Camp Patrick Henry are both notable and important, yet I would like to hear you logic on both this article and the other one for AfD, as I may reverse my decision. Thanks. DARTH PANDAtalk 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles H Flacke was my grandfathers,grandfather and I would be interested in any further information you may have. the information provided here matches his union service records. Thank you for posting it. Rebelrob (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Rebelrob[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator, this is a good-faith genealogist: looks like good work to me, but this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Congrats to the creator for apparently detailed work on his/her greatgreatgrandfather, and thanks for being willing to defer to the wiki denizens :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trans Global Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is poorly sourced, may not be notable, is a bit crystal-bally and seems to exist primarily to mirror the content of a single private website (which is the main source for the info on this page). It was already deleted (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global highway) once and I don't see any reason for it being recreated. Random89 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepSomeone in the previous deletion debate cited a paper from the world development federation. It's not just one crank's idea, it's been seriously discussed. And while it may not be built in the near future, I think the article covering the idea rather than the non-existing structure is worth mentioning. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See above. Notable idea expressed by multiple people. More recent evolution of the cosmopolitan railway. Zazaban (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Mgm. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a notable concept, though it has littel prospect of ever happening. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taylor Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. This is clearly self promotion. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to find anything to back up claims to notability. CultureDrone (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Grsz11 →Review! 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In the absence of any indications of what awards he might have won, he fails the bio requirements for WP:MUSIC, in particular those for WP:COMPOSER. VG ☎ 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cannot find anything relating to this hypothetical award. Nothing about using his compositions on the websites of any of the artists/organisations reported to have used his compositions. Risker (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elect the Dead. Non-chartinh single but a likely search term. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Unthinking Majority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for more information Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Elect the Dead. Whereas two other singles of Tankain's up for deletion are notable due to chart positions, IMO, this didn't chart and wasn't even released as a physical single. But it's a likely search term for the parent album. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Making The Band SWHS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable high-school-produced reality tv show (shown on public access television and itunes) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 I don't think this needs an AfD, it's obviously a non-notable high school production. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 criteria don't include media and this is a contested prod. So here we are. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was in July, before a redirect was turned back into the article by the obstinate creator, so I feel that resets the speedy deletion clock. Also A7 seems to apply since it was an organized production by the school. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article would be A7-able (as an organization), if not for its (weak and wrong) claim of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: Not even close to notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. No WP:RS interest cited or found. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pixel overdrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The concept "pixel overdrive" appears to be idiosyncratic, from the title of a patent. There are no independent sources about it apparently, and so it's not notable. If any sources are found, the concept can be mentioned in the LCD article as the merge proposal suggests, but at this time it's not even worth mentioning, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE's basic criteria. No coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no coverage about this beyond filing of patent documents. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is there given sourcing. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Starmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Corporation in question does not achieve standards required for notability as specified in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Tigerassault (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion debates especially WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You didn't specify how it failed to meet the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be reasonable to imply that the nominator meant that the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources reliable and independent of the subject. The guidelines are pretty straightforward. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The company is mentioned in at least two news articles found via Google News Search,[13][14] one of which describes the company as "the second largest furniture manufacturer in Thailand".[15] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being the second largest furniture manufacturer in a country the size of Thailand sounds pretty notable, and the sources found by Paul confirm this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources shown by Paul_012 show notability; it would be nice if the article was referenced with a few of them though. Arsenikk (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tone 19:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mindanao Autonomous College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable college ([16]), probable advertising, page previously speedy deleted three times (Mindanao autonomous college foundation incorporated, THE MINDANAO AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE). Contested prod. Maethordaer (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) and salt — blatant advertising/spam. Also request creation protection to prevent further recreation of spam. MuZemike (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Norwegian UFO-sighting 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two years ago, someone saw a light in the sky. "Some people believed, and the newspapers half-seriously claimed that it was a UFO". However, the "sighting" had no impact on anything, and should not be covered in Wikipedia. Punkmorten (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unremarkable event that since has been explained. No impact and nothing to expand the article with. - Mgm|(talk) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the title is faulty, I doubt it was the only Norwegian UFO sighting in 2006. If for some remarkable reason this is kept, it should definitely be renamed. - Mgm|(talk) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not a notable event at all, it's like something I'd read about in my local free weekly newspaper and then never hear about again. Pursey Talk | Contribs 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a UFO now that it has been identified, so there is nothing to write about. WillOakland (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to bolide. To its credit, the article is sourced, although it looks like this quickly went from a UFO to an IFO. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Mgm DavidWS (contribs) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and do not merge. There's nothing remarkable about this particular observation of a UFO. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nominator's concern regarding references has been addressed to his satisfaction. VG ☎ 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scientific freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find references, the article has almost no content, and I don't understand why this should be on wikipedia. DavidWS (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scientific freedom is the subject of article 15 ¶ 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which you can find analyzed on page 32 of ISBN 0754673138. If you still don't understand, start reading from page 59 onwards of The Ethics of Science by David B. Resnik (Routledge, 1998, ISBN 0415166985, ISBN 9780415166980). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay, I was just looking around online. Make sure the ref. is in the article. DavidWS (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Unless there's another article covering the same topic. It's pretty well dicussed as a concept and a somewhat politicized movement. --Kickstart70TC 22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GNU FriBidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. I think that this is most likely non-notable like most free software. Schuym1 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Not notable enough to deserve its own page. DavidWS (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The thing is listed in List_of_GNU_packages#Development and the article doesn't really give any more information than is in that single line. It's a useful and oft-used library, but there simply isn't anything to write an article on it. Grandmartin11 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skulduggery Pleasant . Likely search term being the main antagonist, (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nefarian Serpine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant unless sources come to light. The main antagonist of a book series is a likely search term. - Mgm|(talk) 16:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reason above. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that reason would be..? Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. No real-world context or analysis; non-notable outside of novel; can be easily merged with one or two short paragraphs (once plot re-hashing is removed). Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She's already described in the main article. Full of OR, no sources given. Fletcher (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of secondary characters in Skulduggery Pleasant . MBisanz talk 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baron Vengeous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant 2: Playing With Fire. - Mgm|(talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of secondary characters in Skulduggery Pleasant and rename said article. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. No real-world context or analysis; fails WP:N. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not covered in independent sources, insofar as I can see. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Underworld (film series). Merger at editorial discretion. Sandstein 21:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erika (Underworld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of real-world context surrounding the character; if the character did anything of importance in the film(s), it can be mentioned in the film articles' Plot or Cast sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Erik. He gives a good argument for where this material should go. DGG (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Underworld (film series). No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial mention in the movie review linked from the article. VG ☎ 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Non-notable, no real-world context or analysis. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Underworld (film series). SoWhy 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soren (Underworld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of real-world context surrounding the character; if the character did anything of importance in the film(s), it can be mentioned in the film articles' Plot or Cast sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Underworld (film series). No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Character mentioned just once in passing in the review linked from the article. VG ☎ 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge together with the other vampires in the series to a combination article. I cant see a separate article any more than a staright delete. Thee's a source, so it isnt OR. The nom could have found those sources too, easily enough. DGG (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. There are two sources, but they are hardly used, and don't help establish real-world notability. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Creature Walks Among Us. There seems to be a consensus for merge or redirect, urging a "merge" as the article on the film itself does not have any significant sourced info on this character. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcia Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of its film through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is also an article about a character of that same movie:
- Jed Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) EconomistBR 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Creature Walks Among Us. - Mgm|(talk) 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nominator TTN, who cited WP:PLOT, WP:Verifiability and WP:N violations as reason for deleting the article. This is very odd, the articles for the movie characters Marcia Barton and Jed Grant were created 7 months before the article for the actual movie The Creature Walks Among Us. EconomistBR 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and set redirect to The Creature Walks Among Us. No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since sources have been added The requirement for notability outside the universe is imaginary. The notability of a character is because they';re a significant character in a significant work. That's what works discussing them will discuss--not that the character becomes real and walks the streets, not that someone makes a joke and nominates a character for a real office, or names a child after him, or the few other instances where a character in fiction might conceivably have "real" significance. DGG (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Not notable enough for a separate article; remove all plot re-hashing and it should fit nicely in a character section somewhere. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pango. SoWhy 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HarfBuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. I think that this is most likely non-notable like most free software. Schuym1 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Pango. This a common chunk of code (library if you will, but it has no clear API) shared by Pango and the Qt font library. So, you're not going to find any reviews for it, and likely it won't be mentioned in any books either. A merge and redirect is most appropriate, but it's not entirely clear where to redirect this to. I would say redirect to Pango because the Qt font subsystem doesn't have an article. VG ☎ 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Pango per above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concept of death and adjustment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unredeemable WP:OR essay. It has been suggested that it be merged to Death and culture, but in any case there seems to be no reason for an article of this name. Note that this is related through authorship and content to Death and Adjustment Hypotheses which deleted earlier AFD) Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: While the article seems well sourced on its surface, after a deeper look, I have to agree that there is a lot of WP:SYNT involved in this article. Much of the article takes statements from various sources and strings them together to support new and original conclusions. It might be fixable, but it would take a lot of work. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree with Blueboar, but the topic of preparation/adjustment to death is very important and too big to fit into existing Death or Death in culture. Are you sure that the article is unredeemable? NVO (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We perhaps could have an article on this subject under some name. What I'm seeing, however, is that is article is really an elaborate WP:COATRACK for Mohammad Samir Hossain. Freud and Kübler-Ross were psychologists; Becker was an anthropologist. Does all their stuff fit together? Well, that's why this thing is a synthesis! Heck, Dylan Thomas wrote a poem dedicated to not adjusting! Becker's thesis,by way of extreme contrast, is "that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism." (from our article on The Denial of Death, his magnum opus) A big part of the reason I prefer to see this deleted is that I have no idea where to file these ideas, except under Category:Death. It seems to be Samir Hossain's thesis that all of this stuff does go together on some less expansive level. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm a little conflicted here. On the one hand, I think an article that listed/compared different theories of cultural responses to death and dying would be a good addition to Wikipedia and this seems to be the closest we have. On the other hand, this article seems to have the wrong viewpoint altogether, meaning that the it would need to be largely rewritten to avoid it being "original research" or at least "new synthesis". I'm also having trouble following exactly what the article is actually saying, which again points to a need for re-writing. Matt Deres (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frankenstein Conquers the World. It's unlikely it's going to be a search term but redirect is the choice of the masses. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankenstein's Monster (Toho) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of Frankenstein Conquers the World through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the main article. (Great movie, by the way!) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snowball keep (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander Jacob IPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability of the subject not established: see article talk page and discussion over declined Speedy nomination. Springnuts (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can see how some of the sources might be problematic, but come on! A presidential award makes someone notable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: He won a few awards. Schuym1 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted by MacGyver, WP:BIO notes that someone who "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is likely notable. Together with all the other sources, this is surely enough to guarantee notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: He is notable as per the sources cited. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: As I had mentioned in Talk:Alexander_Jacob_IPS#Notability, the responsibilities that he holds now is more than sufficient to establish notability. I had removed notability tag in the article after considering those facts. I don't understand why the article is submitted here for AFD again. --Jacob.jose (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notability has been established. However, article needs wikification and additional sourcing. I have tagged it for such. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was that the nomination was withdrawn. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Semiregular space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article, semiregular space, should be deleted because there is already an equivalent article on it (Locally regular space) (local regularity is equivalent to semiregularity. This is quite trivial and follows from the fact that a subspace of a regular space is regular). I have already explained on Locally regular space, that this is the case by stating that locally regular spaces can also be referred to as semiregular spaces. This article also does not contain any information that the article on local regularity doesn't. Topology Expert (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason to delete duplicate articles. They can just be merged and redirected, which seems to be the right option here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CBM is right, we can redirect, merge, or both. No reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Locally regular space. I mooted the proposal over there, just in case there are any objections. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any point in merging because as I mentioned, Locally regular space contains more information that semiregular space. There is only one sentence of information in semiregular space (which is already included in locally regular space) anyway so merging is not necessary.
I have already mentioned (in locally regular space) that there is an alternate (but equivalent definition) of local regularity. In fact, I have never seen the term 'locally regular space' anywhere in literature. I have however seen the term 'semiregular space' on several occassions (see counterexamples in topology). If 'locally regular space' is not an official mathematical term, then there should be no Wikipedia article on it. So I have changed my mind. I would rather delete locally regular space and put all the information there, in this article (under the name 'semiregular space'. Notice in this case, merging or redirecting is not necessary since locally regular space is not a mathematical term). If you object, could you please provide a reference (such as a book) where the term locally regular space has been used (actually I saw an article on Locally Hausdorff space and thought that if there was such a concept, there should be one on locally regular space (despite the fact that I had never seen the term used before). Only recently, I saw the term 'semiregular space' which had essentially the same definition as 'locally regular space')).
Thanks for your input.
Topology Expert (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A9) Nancy talk 13:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Poker-Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Poker-Face: The Love Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a future debut album, more than a year off, from non-notable singer Paul De Billionare whose (probably autobiographical) article, which has been nominated for speedy, says he "confirmed in November 2008 that he was in the experimental stages of a new album." Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:NALBUMS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the author is now changing dates frantically. Release date has been brought forward from Dec 2009 to 1 Jan 2009 on the album's article and 24 Dec 2008 on the artist's, where we also learn that his age is 15. I have added to this nomination his second album, due Sep 2009. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is a non-released debut album with an unknown and no reliable sources to determine if anything (including the changes) is true. -Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, and the template as well whilst we're at it. No notability, and I'm afraid this reminds me of Creme Brulée. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD A9. Non-notable albums by a red linked artist. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't know about A9 - what a useful new CSD. I will tag them right away. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, only freshly removed from the oven, and is still on the cooling rack, that's how new. She's a beautiful thing. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete everything. This crap goes in the toilet along with other bodily wastes. JuJube (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A9, its might be snowing everyone --Numyht (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted by me as the inevitable outcome. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicholas Fairley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable athlete - google turns up nothing at all on this person. Majorclanger (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Majorclanger (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as probable hoax. No ghits or gnews for this player, no entry at baseball-reference or milb.com. If not a hoax, then most definitely non-notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, do the MLB managers have any role in drafting players out of high school? (Fairly would have been at most 18 for Johnny Oates to have had a role in his selection) Seems like that would be a front office decision... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor leaguers aren't notable simply for being minor leaguers, and nothing is given by this article to show that he did anything more. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources or notability, as said even if he is real he's still not notable. Blackngold29 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Per WP:BIO. The AfD process on such articles should be sped up. EconomistBR 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BencherliteTalk 10:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashley henbrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. IP removed speedy tag. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 absolutely non-notable. Speedy tag replaced - the IP who keeps removing it (probably the author and subject) should not get away with that. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deutscha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NOTDIR in my opinion. Instead of speedying, I would rather assume good faith and get a consensus. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dictionary definition of a slang term with no chance of expanding beyond the definition. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced neologism, and a dict-def at best. --Lockley (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism and OR. Google search shows no results, nor does en and de Wiktionaries or de wikipedia. The only use I could find was in a single by rapper Fler. LeaveSleaves talk 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this original dictionary definition of an apparent neologism. Cliff smith talk 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Gwen Gale. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Continually created and deleted article (AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, which is under a different spelling and casing)) about a Disney Channel Original Movie which has been only a rumor and not announced by the network at all. Current sources in this article are all based on an unsourced IMDb entry, an Amazon.com page about a book, and About.com which features the movie as being in to be determined status. Recommending a salt of this title until we can get a source about this that isn't a Demi Lovato/Selena Gomez or Disney Channel fansite, or IMDb gossip. Nate • (chatter) 07:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources. Edgehead5150 07:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacking reliable sources and a violation of WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as repost.—Kww(talk) 12:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Europa Flight 196 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable air crash. Available evidence indicates pilot landed long. Covered sufficiently in Air Europa and Lanzarote Airport articles. Fails WP:AIRCRASH Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There was no loss of life, no change to flight policies as a result. It's like making article about every non-fatal car crash - completely useless. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, just a bad day at the office accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at the images and blog reports the aircraft did not leave the paved area and their appears to be no damage to the aircraft. Nobody was hurt and the passengers left the aircraft using the normal doors and steps. So really just an incident and not an accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Another editor recently called my attention to proposed guidelines about for notability of an air accident (), and even within those non-binding proposals, I don't see that this would be notable.
Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- we do not usually have articles even on fatal car crashes. This item was so NN that it did not even make the BBC news (or not one that I heard). Clearly NN. Can we not have administrative action taken against users who keep creating these articles on every minor aviation incident? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It is accurate to say it was NN.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep who cares if there's no loss of life or injuries, its an incident that may end out to be pilot error or unclear weather conditions its still to early to delete an article which states that this "under investigation" for this incident. Whenaxis (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Breakaway tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
content already exists in main article Kelly Clarkson concert tours Alankc (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what redirects are for. No need to waste time on a discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold Alankc, be bold. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Breakaway World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
content already exists in main page Kelly Clarkson concert tours Alankc (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what redirects are for. No need to waste time on a discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold Alankc, be bold. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another Wiley spam entry from the author who brought us the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro Process Engineering: A Handbook and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbook of Green Chemistry --Itub (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This one seems to be different than the others (one of them wasn't even published). This title actually rings a bell with me, and it could very well be a standard work in forensics. I'll look into it further. I would like other commenters to look at this entry on its own merit rather than comparing it to the other recently deleted articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Forget what I said, there's books with similar titles, this one won't be released until April 17, 2009 according to Amazon.[17] Clearly violates rules against speculation. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Whether this will be notable can be determined only after the thing is published. In addition, the "Background" section, although it underwent some minor rewording, probably constitutes a copyvio of this page; and the "Topics" and "External links" sections, although relevant to the general topic of forensic science, have little to do with the specific topic of this article. Appears to be intended as advertising, with some irrelevant material thrown in to give the appearance of encyclopedic content. Deor (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua Kopel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Minor actor/model. Most references are about the nightclub he managed - no evidence he was ever 'rated one of the 50 Steamiest Southern Stars'. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Tassedethe (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The assertions of notability is unreferenced. Schuym1 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:ENTERTAINER, non-notable actor. The reference section doesn't contain one verifiable source. EconomistBR 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simple Plan (album). Sandstein 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I Can Wait Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A song from Simple Plan's latest CD, which is alleged to be the next single. There is no sourced information, and it seems to have been made an article on the basis of rumor. Fails WP:MUSIC due to lack of sources. Note that it says "the end of October", it is now November, the alleged release date is past, and google turns up nothing Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. If someone made this article based on a rumor chances are someone will look for the title at some point. We might as well redirect it to the album and point them to the available information immediately. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I follow the band as well, and I haven't heard the rumor. Delete per nominator. -- Poe Joe (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generation (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a song from the band Simple Plan's latest CD. It is claimed to be a future single, but there is no ref, and as someone who follows the band, there is no information out there that this is true. Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC. Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to album article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Poe Joe (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blink-182 discography. Even though this article itself is a result of a merge decision, they're still part of their discography. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blink-182 demo tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
page on demos without any independant reliable sources. prod removed because "this page was created to avoid prods and AFD's from previous demo entries, page has some sources" Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or possible Merge to Blink-182 (but that would cramp the style of the page...). Or an even better idea that i've used with demo albums on wikipedia before: Merge to album that the demo became, since most demos are re-recorded or have material recorded on later albums. See This example - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we could merge to Blink-182 discography? - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Blink-182 discography per WP:MUSIC#Albums, per the example supplied by Luke The Spook. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Into Blink-182 discography. — neuro(talk) 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, these are two demo tapes that didn't turn into an album (see Buddha, their first album) so there isn't really anything to merge them with. This page is actually a merge of two separate articles that have existed for at least 3 years (in the case of Flyswatter), eventually merged to prevent them from being deleted. Now they document the earliest stages of the band - which makes it notable enough, I think. If you see some other articles out there that arent being considered for deletion, we should definitely keep this one.--GraafGeorge (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Already speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DC Chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable chat-room - No external links or citations. A "list" of regular members for a topic without sufficient context. So far there are 1000 topics not to write your article about - I think we're looking at 1001st. . . Flewis(talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already speedied --Flewis(talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request of author. --Elonka 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rj Revilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable article about an actor; IMDB page exists, but it seems to lack enough content for the article to be worthy of being here in Wikipedia. The author of the page seems to be the same as the subject in question. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Page now carries this message: "Delete this page. requested by the author. Bautistar (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)" Is that a good rationale for a speedy delete? I forget. --Lockley (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete CSD G1, redirected to xkcd. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transconsciousness Messaging Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable concept recently coined by a webcomic. Topic hasn't been discussed by third party sources. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Themfromspace (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article qualifies for deletion under CSD:G1 - Patent nonsense and as per advice on IRC, it has been tagged accordingly by myself. For this reason, I will take no further part in this AfD. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Utter nonsense. Rilak (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Element Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A music festival in Ireland that got cancelled. The two sources don't convince me of notability, and I'm not sure how weighty they are in any case. Reyk YO! 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah no, they're all well-loved bands in Ireland. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: obviously not very notable if it was cancelled. ww2censor (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails general WP:NN guidelines. (Didn't happen, so has no coverage whatsoever). Represents WP:CRYSTAL in speculating on possible future re-scheduling. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and remove that which contradicts the above. Add more sources. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not really sure that's appropriate Candlewicke. The simple fact is that this event didn't happen, and may never happen. (And hence fails WP:SPECULATION and WP:ORG). If you were to cull all the speculative stuff and the stuff that didn't happen ("these bands never played"), there would be nothing left. Save for a one-liner that read: "The Element Festival was a proposed festival that never happened". And this would fail WP:NN as - it seems - the cancellation of this event wasn't even notable enough for a single mention in any mainstream news source. (Or, to put it another way, given that this event didn't happen, the only reason to keep would be if it's cancellation was notable. Which it wasn't.) Guliolopez (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Background detail. [18] [19] [20] --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the bands, i.e., The Flaws, Boss Volenti, Hybrasil, The Aftermath, have their own articles. This non-notable festival was to have some notable bands. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, many new sources added to the article Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The electra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brian Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band fails WP:Music--one record, and coverage only in odd journals/magazines, most of them written by one single person (only with the greatest imagination can these be called independent, third-party, in-depth), and nothing else worth noting. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - I also recommend that this article be deleted as an NN personality associated with the subject (fails WP:ENTERTAINER):
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Brian Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment - This article has been deleted before as CSD A7. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the nominator: I will gladly entertain the motion brought forward by 72.etc--and I'll second it too. Brian Nixon is as non-notable as The electra, by the same guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Electra is an important group to the history of hip hop. As the founding group of two of hip-hop's influential personages (Jank and Wolf), this article should remain. It must be pointed out that both Jank and Wolf have been featured in books, magazines, and countless of articles. Jank has won European (Spanish) awards for his art.[citation needed] Though little has been written (until recently) about their founding group, The Electra (largely through interviews with the third member), this should have little impact on whether or not one should keep the article. As further historical study on Jank and Wolf comes to fruition, this article can act as a catalyst for cultural and historical inquiry into the impact of underground hip-hop. MJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2008
- Comment - That may all be true, but none of it is referenced from the article, and some of the links that you have provided (like TV Guide) are not reliable sources … you really need to understand WP:V and WP:RS.
Au contrair ... that is the essence of WP:RS ... if it ain't been reported elsewhere, we can't be the first to report it ... that's called original research, and it is forbidden by the policies and guidelines."Though little has been written (until recently) about their founding group, … this should have little impact on whether or not one should keep the article."
<Sigh!> … please see What Wikipedia is not. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"… this article can act as a catalyst for cultural and historical inquiry into the impact of underground hip-hop."
- Comment - That may all be true, but none of it is referenced from the article, and some of the links that you have provided (like TV Guide) are not reliable sources … you really need to understand WP:V and WP:RS.
Keep.Thanks for the clarification. I went ahead and expanded the article to include original sources from the era, as well as books, magazines and publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout ... please see this note about formatting external links, and edit Mensa International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see how the
<ref></ref>
and{{Reflist}}
tags work. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout ... please see this note about formatting external links, and edit Mensa International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see how the
Keep. Will do. Thanks for the help. You help is greatly appreciated.
- Single recommendation per editor, please. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article should remain. There are several Wikipedia internal links within this article, and I agree that the band is notable and has contributed to musical history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some new original research. I will format it as I go along. I beleive 18 references should be enough for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ManJank- you must be a fan! Good for you. A great band. Bygrace3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 72.75.110.31- thanks for your help. I think Manjank must be new. I have nothing really to say about the Nixon article- most likely, it should be deleted. But, I definitely think that we should keep the Electra page. There is enough concise, original information and many accurate references to warrant its inclusion on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bygrace3 – Take a look at William Munroe (pencil maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example of proper footnotes using
<ref></ref>
and{{Reflist}}
templates. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- 72. Thanks, I will look up the William Munroe site. I should have it finished by tomorrow afternoon. I really appreciate your help :)
- Bygrace3 – Take a look at William Munroe (pencil maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example of proper footnotes using
- Bygrace3- Wow! Great research.Thank you. Yes, I am a fan. Can you tell by my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 72.75.110.31 I'm finished with the Electra article. Thank you for your help with the references. I definitely think it is worth keeping. Do you have any other suggestions or improvements?
- ManJank- here you go. Glad to be of help. I, too, am a Jank fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 72.75.110.31Thanks again for everything! Grasshopper's tired and will work on it again tomorrow :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work by all involved. Note: these sources that have raised the level of the article could only have been found by those close to the action, so to speak. I withdraw my nomination for deleting The electra, but this leaves the question of Brian Nixon--any admins around who can answer this? Renominate separately? Because in all honesty, I still don't see notability for that article (the books, for instance, published by a church press, and no independent, third-party sources. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, 72. you are a great teacher. i don't have any feeling with Nixon article. I tried to clean it up some (but i'm new at this). I may have been a little too pro Electra. sorry. MJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjank (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 72 I've tried to make some of your recommendations on cite books, etc. But the Wikipedia citation templates seem to be leading me astray... as you may be able to tell. Any suggestions? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bygrace3 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took care of the first one with a URL:
{{cite web |last=Yardley |first=David |date=March 2008 |title=The Greatest Band You Never Heard |work=Assist News Service (assistnews.net) |accessdate= {{subst:CurrentYYYYMMDD}} |url=http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2008/s08030068.htm}}
- I took care of the first one with a URL:
- generates:
Yardley, David (March 2008). "The Greatest Band You Never Heard". Assist News Service (assistnews.net). Retrieved 2008-11-01.
- I just used {{Cite web}} as a "generic" template (note that the order of the arguments does not matter, so editing is Very Easy) ... leave {{cite journal}} for the peer-reviewed publications. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. – Regarding notability, it's not the quantity, but the quality of the reliable sources ... one "clue" of meeting WP:RS is if the publication has a Wikipedia article to which it can be linked, such as The New York Times ... half a dozen links to NN personal websites and blogs do not WP:RS make. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haley Altman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. Dismas|(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ROFL! So, having appeared numerous times in Playboy is sufficient to keep an article from being a speedy delete? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) 05:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable biography per nomination. --Lockley (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No WP:IS WP:RS. Tosqueira (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tito Munoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tito Munoz is not a notable person. He is even less notable than Joe the Plumber. Munoz is a victim of recentism, and his little notability will plummet to zero come November 4. Information about Munoz would be more appropriate for a 2008 presidential campaign article. Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Tito is the subject of multiple reliable sources and is a notable figure of the 2008 United States Presidential eletion. The reference section alone proves this point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is important for our history to never forget Tito - 71.198.210.149 (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Previous message is by a blocked user. DARTH PANDAduel 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. This guy is about as notable as Harriet Christian, who also made headlines for about a week or two and gave a couple of interviews to Fox News. A similar case is Gayle Quinnell, who was briefly in the media for her "Obama is an Arab" comment. She was parodied on SNL, and yet we don't have an article on her. Tito the Builder's notability, unlike Joe the Plumber's, is entirely based on recent events and will soon die out. Not worthy of an encyclopedia article. A similar case is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James T. Harris. Khoikhoi 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like this is the same Tito Munoz, in a Washington Times article April 22, 2002, Die-in to tie up traffic; Protesters plan rush- hour disorder arguing with World Bank / military aid to Columbia protesters. "Tito Munoz argued steadily in English and Spanish in favor of American military aid and stamping out drug use in his native Colombia with a revolving group of protesters. "You are using Colombia for your own political agenda," said Mr. Munoz, wrapped in a Colombian flag and waving his..."(free preview) John Z (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This concern has been listed at Washington Times article on Tito Munoz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with McCain's campaign article. This is a single paragraph article 100% dependent on it's (passing) connection to the Campaign. Joe the Plumber, by contrast, has a lot more meat. Mattnad (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with an election campaign article as the nominator suggested. Plenty of sources. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge so far, he has had only a few minutes of fame. --User101010 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since Tito's media attention goes back to 2002, and since Tito has been subject of news articles on an almost daily basis for the last part of the 2008 election campaign, it might serve the readers of Wikipedia best to keep this article and look over it again after the election to see if it ends at that point. Since his history goes back to 2002, I believe his notability is something that has increased with time, and continues to do so. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Are you sure the 2002 Tito Munoz is the same person? It looks like that might be a relatively common name. Just playing devil's advocate. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of 2002 Munoz as "[arguing] steadily in English and Spanish in favor of American military aid and stamping out drug use in his native Colombia" seems like a good fit with the current Munoz to me, though of course it could just be a strong coincidence. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we can't even access that source, I'd say it's at least debatable. I'm looking to see if I can find it in archives somewhere. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this material is kept, I don't think that source should be. It's just as valid as this, this, and this, which is to say, it's not. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of 2002 Munoz as "[arguing] steadily in English and Spanish in favor of American military aid and stamping out drug use in his native Colombia" seems like a good fit with the current Munoz to me, though of course it could just be a strong coincidence. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename article Tito the Builder - He has received enough press coverage, and has been officially used by the McCain Palin campaign to warrant an article. Per the precedence set by the article on Joe the Plumber, the article should be renamed. --Dems on the move (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This concern has been listed at Keep and rename article Tito the Builder. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks sufficient independent coverage to satisfy notability, and falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. The burst of coverage is far shorter than that of , say, Joe the Plumber. We do not need an article on every person who has a first name and a profession or hobby who gets mentioned by a political candidate once or twice. Edison|Edison the Editor (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure what makes sources like CBS, Fox News and CNN "not independent". Plenty of sources here to satisfy notability. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See talk page about sources. Most of them were blogs and opinions. I stripped them, but listed them on the talk page. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also read WP:BLP1E. Khoikhoi 01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reliable sources have been removed from the article. Originally, there were at least 10 reliable sources; most of these have been removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, has received international fame (known here in Australia) and is certainly notable enough for his own article. --Nitchell (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tito continues to recieve substantial media attention. See, Channeling "Tito the Builder" in Miami (11/01/08). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One of his interviews was also shown on The Daily Show. VG ☎ 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep Only reason given for deletion is non-notable. There is enough coverage to pass WP:NOTABILITY. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Use Google News to easily verify. The "is not a notable person" will just not cut it, without evidence. Cite the number of sources he appeared in or something that proves he is "not notable". "notability will plummet" is crystal balling, as such this makes it a speedy. Merge to a campaign article would be highly inappropriate unless it turns out that Tito is 1) paid employee of any campaign 2) running for office. Hobartimus (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)(note: changed my vote to simple Keep, per Khoikhoi)[reply]- From WP:1E: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them" and "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Khoikhoi 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to all the media attention he has recieved, Tito does not qualify as "a low-profile individual." The references section contains articles about him, and there are many. Munoz is also listed in other sources that also show him to not be a low profile individual such as Friday's Big names hit the trail (10/31/08). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Tito is known for more than one event. 1) Tito's appearance on Hannity and Colmes has recieved substantial media coverage; Tito the Builder slammed Barack Obama and especially the mainstream media on Hannity and Colmes, "Tito the Builder" gets his 15 Minutes, and Tito the Builder on "Hannity & Colmes" are some examples. 2) The Canada Free Press reported that, "There’s a rousing cheer coming out of Colombia for Tito the Builder. That rousing cheer is “Viva Tito!” Tito the Builder, now running his own construction company in the US, is Colombian born."[21]. 3. Tito's appearance with Sarah Palin on October 27, 2008 recieved substanctial media attention; “Tito The Builder” Makes Cameo At Palin Rally, Palin trots out 'Tito the builder' at Virginia rally, and Tito the Builder Joins Palin on the Stump are some examples. 4. The speech that Tito gave, at the John McCain event at Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia, has also recieved media attention, MOJO VIDEO: Mad for McCain (Starring "Tito the Builder"). Tito is beyond one event at this point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:1E: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them" and "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Khoikhoi 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's all true, and you have reliable sources, then put them in the article. Most of the ones that are there now are blogs and opinion pieces. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete per WP:BLP1E (only been mentioned recently, and mainly in passing) and WP:NOTNEWS. Can't these articles be covered in a main US election one or something? It's shallow trivia, unencyclopedic and in some cases a WP:BLP minefield. Sticky Parkin 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:BLP1E. This man is notable only for one event that received a short burst of news coverage and then died down. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service; hence, the article should be deleted as its subject is merely of ephemeral interest. Biruitorul Talk 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To me, this appears as 2008 US Election 2008 cruft, and may quickly drift out of interest after the election is over. Is there a Republican 2008 campaign strategy article where this could be grouped into? +mt 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Khoi's comments. Another example of someone who's received a flurry of media coverage is Tyler Snyder. Remember him? He caught Barry Bonds 714th home run in May 2006. Remember him, now? No? So much for rampant media coverage establishing notability. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Catching a ball at a sporting event is hardly comparable to a presidential election campaign. We even heard about this chap in Australia. Orpheus (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete he will be easily forgotten as a minor footnote to the 2008 election, and is very much non notable, and in addition this article name should redirect to Tito Muñoz the conductor is more notable and has the exact name as this individualThisglad (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One can argue that "he will easily be forgotten," but at present he continues to be referenced in the media on an almost daily basis. This has been the pattern for the latter part of the 2008 campaign. Who knows how much coverage he will continue to recieve in the future, but to date it has been substantial media coverage per google news. This is one of the reasons for keeping this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the Canada Free Press has reported that, “There’s a rousing cheer coming out of Colombia for Tito the Builder," this article has been included in the Colombia deletion sorting. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 per WP:BLP1E. He is not notable outside of the campaign's context and whatever notability his episode has in the campaign belongs to the campaign article. --Irpen 21:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been a vigorous debate above on the notability of this article. There seems to be an equal amount of arguements for each perspective concerning the choices of keeping, merging and deleting this article. As this is topic has recieved considerable media attention during and around the 2008 campaign, providing more time for consensus would allow this subject to be further reviewed concerning the 2008 election. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008. Only notable in that context. Unlike Joe the Plumber, Tito had no interactions with Obama. A campaign mascot basically. VG ☎ 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with the merge suggestions above. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- James Eric Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing, other than hoaxes, is really notable about him. I suppose he could be a notable hoax.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I strongly suggest the nominator either elaborate with evidence on his claims of hoaxes or refactor the nomination per WP:BLP. the skomorokh 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Space Travel Services (a hoax on someone's part, not necessary Jim). That might be a notable hoax, but I don't see anything else notable about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see what you were getting at now. Out of context your nomination could be interpreted as a smear; it's best to be clear about these things from the start. the skomorokh 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, if Space Travel Services is the proproted hoax, how about we read what the man himself has to say on the matter. Note the provided photo-copy clip from a TIME article on the event. --Cast (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The TIME clipping doesn't mention Davidson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, if Space Travel Services is the proproted hoax, how about we read what the man himself has to say on the matter. Note the provided photo-copy clip from a TIME article on the event. --Cast (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see what you were getting at now. Out of context your nomination could be interpreted as a smear; it's best to be clear about these things from the start. the skomorokh 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Space Travel Services (a hoax on someone's part, not necessary Jim). That might be a notable hoax, but I don't see anything else notable about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified the non-anon contributors to the article, other than the one who already found it, via AWB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The most reliable sources barely mention the subject. The other sources appear to be mostly self-published or otherwise poor quality. It is possible that the article was written by the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's best not to toss around accusations of puppetry when it's a simple matter to check the article history and see that the majority of edits have been made by various editors with a history of activity, and are perhaps even administrators, on Wikipedia. --Cast (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's likely that the original creator of the article is the subject. Counting edits is meaningless, but it's not impossible that all substantive edits are from socks of the creator; especially since there were only 4 editor names other than myself who have ever edited the article while logged in.
- On further review, I find that the creator of the article indirectly identifies himself as the subject of the article. See this post,[22] in which he describes being a party to a dispute and links to this letter [23] as evidence. Note further, that the editor created an article about a (non-notable?) group/online publication to which the subject of this article is a contributor. The fact that the subject created the article is not, by itself, a reason to delete it. But it does mean that the notability issue merits additional attention, and that the article needs to be carefully reviewed for verifiability and neutrality. For example, the first several sections are unsourced or have poor sources (like an email written by the subject). The subject's notability appears to rest on his participation in the space lottery, but even there he isn't described as the leader. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's the strongest case for notability. I hadn't read the article before I noticed it had been nominated for deletion, but was quite familiar with the subject after having read a lot of coverage (probably not reliable) over the years on his association with van Notten and anarchy in Somalia. I suspect that had his exploits been in a time where newspapers were published online, WP:GNG would be satisfied easily. the skomorokh 23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any mention of Davidson in Anarchy in Somalia, a 3,000-word article. I've searched Proquest, a newspaper archive going back to at least 1986, but I can't find anything for [Somalia+"Jim Davidson" or "James Davidson"] nor for ["James Davidson"+"van Notten"]. There are many mentions of him in regard to the Space Travel Services, but they do little more than mention him. The STS probably deserves an article, which would naturally include Davidson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of that particular GA, I hope you will take my word for it ;) If not, see essays by Davidson on the subject at [24] and [25]. the skomorokh 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any mention of Davidson in Anarchy in Somalia, a 3,000-word article. I've searched Proquest, a newspaper archive going back to at least 1986, but I can't find anything for [Somalia+"Jim Davidson" or "James Davidson"] nor for ["James Davidson"+"van Notten"]. There are many mentions of him in regard to the Space Travel Services, but they do little more than mention him. The STS probably deserves an article, which would naturally include Davidson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's the strongest case for notability. I hadn't read the article before I noticed it had been nominated for deletion, but was quite familiar with the subject after having read a lot of coverage (probably not reliable) over the years on his association with van Notten and anarchy in Somalia. I suspect that had his exploits been in a time where newspapers were published online, WP:GNG would be satisfied easily. the skomorokh 23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, I find that the creator of the article indirectly identifies himself as the subject of the article. See this post,[22] in which he describes being a party to a dispute and links to this letter [23] as evidence. Note further, that the editor created an article about a (non-notable?) group/online publication to which the subject of this article is a contributor. The fact that the subject created the article is not, by itself, a reason to delete it. But it does mean that the notability issue merits additional attention, and that the article needs to be carefully reviewed for verifiability and neutrality. For example, the first several sections are unsourced or have poor sources (like an email written by the subject). The subject's notability appears to rest on his participation in the space lottery, but even there he isn't described as the leader. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's likely that the original creator of the article is the subject. Counting edits is meaningless, but it's not impossible that all substantive edits are from socks of the creator; especially since there were only 4 editor names other than myself who have ever edited the article while logged in.
- Delete per nom. --John (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from the New York Times that covers the same material as the Time magazine article. However, it establishes Davidson as one of the principals of the company, and also establishes that the Soviet space agency corroborated the existence of a contract. Of course, the state enthusiasts who edit this site won't ever argue with a government. So, the government of Texas said there was no contract, the government of the Soviet Union said there was a contract. I guess that's a conundrum for the government worshipers. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1D61F3DF933A15751C1A966958260 Planetaryjim (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that the person, Arthur Rubin, who nominated the deletion of this page also nominated the page on Boston Tea Party (Political Party) for deletion. That page was deleted and has subsequently been resurrected. Is deleting pages his hobby? Planetaryjim (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually deleting pages has become a hobby, because a certain D00d has made a habit of creating nonsense categories and templates. But I deleted the Boston Tea Party under WP:CSD#G4, a recreation of a previously deleted article which did not deal with the reasons for deletion. I still think it meets the criterion, but another admin disagrees, and it appears it's there may be a reason to keep the article, even though there's still no indication of notability yet.
- As for you — the page was brought to my attention by a usually reliable source, and I tend to agree that there's nothing notable about you, that can be confirmed. (I mean, about Jim. Sorry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adequate notability. Current chairman of a political party that fielded candidates, including a presidential, in 2008, and that has ballot access in a number of states. Allixpeeke (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A number" = less than 3 (the candidate was on the ballot in 3 states, but he technically ran as an independent in at least one of them. If the party had "ballot access", it would be easier to run on the party ticket than as an independent.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep. Non-admin closure. If you think I made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page! DARTH PANDAduel 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Joe the Plumber is not a notable character. He is simply the result of media hysteria. Information on Joe the Plumber can be included in an article on the McCain and Obama campaigns Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This topic was hashed over. This article has got heavy traffic on a daily basis by both editors and viewers. That in itself is notable. He is on the campaign trail with McCain presently. There may be more support for deletion after the November 4 election? Too soon for any merge or other activity at this time. --VictorC (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Joe the Plumber has been a constant theme of, and presence in, the McCain campaign ever since the last debate. Yes, the media has fanned this, but so has McCain; such is American culture, which we should reflect. Time has shown the original AfD correctly decided not to delete. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So "media hysteria" is now the reason we write articles here at Wikipedia?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the McCain campaign has deliberately made Joe the Plumber into a political symbol, one of the most important of the final month of the campaign. Many pundits have credited Joe and the accompanying "spread the wealth" criticism of Obama for McCain's modest gains in recent polling. Yes, the media likes JtP because it's a good story, but this is not a media creation. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as one piece of evidence that it's not just the media keeping this going, see this Wall Street Journal story from yesterday: "McCain introduced Wurzelbacher as 'an American hero, a great citizen of Ohio and my role model.'" Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Not notable outside this election. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Notable all over the world. Just google it, or talk to a human. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone also nominate for deletion this article Tito Munoz? Seems to be related. More fluff.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Munoz. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Last afd closed just 15 days ago as keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per TenPoundHammer and Wasted Time R. This man is important and notable at least while the media keeps fanning his story. After the election, we can see, but right now, he's important. DARTH PANDAduel 00:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This was recently AFD'ed and kept. We can't keep nominating something until we get the result we like. There is supposed to be a waiting period. I suggest we wait with our final decision at least until after the elections, it's just 3 more days. Then the whole hype will be over and we can look at it with a clear head. - Mgm|(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep but preferably as a rd to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. JJL (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Despite his recent increased role in the campaign, he will only ever be famous for the 2008 presidential campaign. Therefore, the article contents should be merged with the campaign articles. After November 4 nobody is going to care about this article anymore. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I hear the name as often as I hear McCain's or Obama's some days. That in itself makes him notable. Post election, might be a very different story.svunt (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this has been hashed over at least 5 times in other forums with the same result: to keep. Since then, the topic has become even more notable. I do wish people would read the talk pages before wasting our time with the same bedraggled arguments.Mattnad (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, media hysteria is a good reason for an article. If media coverage of a topic rises to the level of hysteria, it is almost certainly a notable, encyclopedic topic. Histories of the campaign will be written, and JtP will certainly figure in scholarly books and articles on it.John Z (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a related Afd located at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Munoz. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP - Very notable. Ask anyone, google him, everyone knows who he is. Plus, he's been a huge part of the McCain campaign ever since the question he asked Obama, as well as basically the entire third debate. I don't know why this was even nominated. Plus, tons of media hysteria=most likely notable. DavidWS (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We'll have to see if he'll be notable just for the election. Right now, he's notable. Why the rush to delete? This article has been nom'ed for AFD just over 2 weeks ago, and there was no consensus for deletion. We can always AFD this three months down the road with clearer heads and when the election-mania is over. Fraud talk to me 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Anybody think WP:SNOW applies now, or do we have to consider the two delete votes above? DARTH PANDAduel 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is WP:SNOWing... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G4. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Same reasons as the first two AFDs. When this article was recreated, I put a speedy tag on it which was declined by Pegasus on the basis of the information contained in the new first reference at http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003886078 . He must see something there that I don't, because I don't see a tracklist, a release date, or a title, which means this article is still about a crystal album. —Kww(talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. How I would love to mercilessly trout-slap every person who ever makes an album page of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Actually, G4, this is the third afd in a month for this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you check the history, it was declined a G4 "per new reference #1 which contains substantial info about the new album" (User:Pegasus). DARTH PANDAduel 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is it? Is it? It's HAMMERTIME! DARTH PANDAduel 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank n Dank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Frank n Dank discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Contested prod (anonymously). This musical duo fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Concur with statement that the duo fails WP:MUSIC in every single criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep some coverage here and a few minor mentions ([26][27]) in reliable sources and them some coverage in more dubious sources (e.g. [28]). Icewedge (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only my own observation, but I do not consider hiphop.de and hhpulse.com as qualified reliable sources for biographical texts here. I will of course defer to the community's best judgment on this. JBsupreme (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this is deleted everything in category:Frank n Dank albums should go as well. Icewedge (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this and the discography are deleted, all of the rest can painlessly go via {{db-album}}. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless better media coverage than provided in the article and above can be found, I don't see how they meet WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Their album 48 Hours was produced by the Grammy award-winning J Dilla, who upon his death was described by Dave Stelfox in The Wire (March 2008 - http://incubate.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/stelfox-remembers-j-dilla-in-march-issue-of-the-wire/) as a hiphop producer who 'achieved something that few musicians ever manage, leaving not only a timeless and innovative back catalogue, but a whole generation inspired by his idiosyncratic and intricately wrought work.' They were also featured on his 'beat tapes, 'which promoted [Dilla's] sense of musical style' (http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2006_04_donuts.html). Frank N Dank have also been reviewed by Pitchforkmedia, a well-established and influential music webzine, who talk of 'the super-minimalist lunchroom table thump-clap of Frank N Dank' (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/145776-madlib-wlib-am-king-of-the-wigflip), and by Dusted Magazine (http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/3658). This work, as described in the Wire article, is strongly representative of the Detroit hiphop sound in the early 21st century.78.86.131.158 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) re-signed by User:Ecbenton— 78.86.131.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Ecbenton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Working with a great producer (OK, really great) and getting some reviews of your album does not make you notable. Please see WP:MUSIC for more details. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they have been the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable' (Pitchfork and Dusted reviews). They have been cited (Wire article) as 'vital to [J Dilla's] vision', i.e. they've 'been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer' who is notable, another criterion.Ecbenton (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Working with a great producer (OK, really great) and getting some reviews of your album does not make you notable. Please see WP:MUSIC for more details. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daily Money Management Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am not quite certain what is going on here -- it appears to a strange mix of neologism, original research and talk about an organisation (The American Association of Daily Money Managers) that does not have its own Wikipedia page. All told, it is a bit of a mess. And, yes, AfD is not meant for clean-up...but I don't think this can be cleaned up. What do you think? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see what you mean. It reads like a coathook for American Association of Daily Money Managers, which would be a better subject for an article, but not if the article was like this one. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article's paucity is to blame for this--I can't tell if it's an ad or a new term or what. I don't see this as something that needs to be cleaned up, only cleaned out. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Has been tagged unsourced for 2 years. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Jeremiah (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC etc. JBsupreme (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC Jeepday (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The band's article on the Spanish-language Wikipedia also does not list any sources, and I could find none on the band's official website either. Only one turns up in a Google News search. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tom DeLay. Will do so now. fish&karate 11:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dani DeLay Ferro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is notability inherited? And do one-shot newsmakers deserve a place on Wikipedia long after their shelf date expired? This article raises that question. I am in favour of seeing it go. Is Ms. DeLay Ferro still notable enough for Wikipedia? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notability has nothing to do with time. History doesn't become less important with time. God works with angels. But seriously, notable and verifiable. Keep.Dr. Locarno (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article only tries to focus on apparently illegal or questionable activities. - (WP:UNDUE weight and WP:BLP concerns) Mgm|(talk) 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge to Tom DeLay. Her press mentions are purely in the context of her father, and she thus has no notability of her own, and notability is not inherited. The BLP concerns can be dealt with by editing. RayAYang (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tom DeLay. Only notable in the context of Tom DeLay's activities. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge to Tom DeLay. Take away everything involving her father and there would be nothing left, clearly demonstating that she does not have notability outside the context of her father, and her activities reflect more upon him than upon her in the notability department. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Jackson Capps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable jengod (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A more detailed reasoning would be appreciated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this article has a similar issue as this AfD. My reasoning for deleting both articles is very similar. The article mentions that he was a Private, making him of questionable notability. Furthermore, the whole article is extremely hard to read and if this ends in a keep, would require a great deal of cleaning. DARTH PANDAtalk 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as author, I am not at all opposed to deletion of article. This one of four intial forays I made into Wiki over past year. Article would probably be better rewritten as a unit history of the 10th NC Heavy Artillery Battalion. I'd be very interested in feedback on two of my other articles I have contributed to significantly: William Capps and Camp Patrick Henry --Mpdc100 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability and verifiability.Dr. Locarno (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't disagree that this is verifiable, but can you explain your logic for his notability? DARTH PANDAduel 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see why a random Confederate soldier is notable, especially one that hasn't been awarded any awards for action, or done something notable. ThePointblank (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:BIO based on the references provided. Much of the article is not about the soldier but about 8th/10th Battalion North Carolina Heavy Artillery. It looks like the battalion may me notable under WP:N and it might be better for the creator of this article to write a new one, about the battallion and perhaps include some of the info from the current text there. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Nick Dowling (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rewrite as history of 8/10 Battalion NC Heavy Artillery. Buckshot06(prof) 12:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Salman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article, as written, does not show notability. I couldn't find independent verification of his fame for his use of investment groups (one would assume that something would show up on google if he made headlines). Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable businessperson. Law shoot! 21:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PEOPLE in every single criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources to show notability under WP:BIO (none in the article and I could not find anything substantive after a bit of googling). Nothing in googlenews[29]. Also, significant WP:V problems. Nothing to show that Phren Labs LLC even exists (google only give a single hit to this Wikipedia article[30]). There are other suspicious signs. Thus googlesearching shows that "Crown Acquisitions Inc" in located in Orange County CA[31], while the article says that Salman lives in Miami Beach, Floroda. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- United-TI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notable tagged since June 2007. Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 07:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a fanpage for a random website. According to Alexa it's not even well-visited. Not to mentioned the lack of reliable sources unrelated to the article subject. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Myke Stryker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We Be the Echo might be notable, but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't explain why you didn't opt for redirection or merging. - Mgm|(talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO and notability is not inherited. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - the band article should probably go as well. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Graeme Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We Be the Echo might be notable, but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This artist is obviously prolific and has had some trans-atlantic success with various bands. Is wikipedia not a good source of information on a musician like this? -Johnny88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.180.83 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't explain why you didn't opt for a redirect or a merge. - Mgm|(talk) 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nom notability is not inherited and fails WP:BIO page. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All-Star Destroyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication this album passes WP:MUSIC. VG ☎ 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The proffered sources go a long way to meeting concerns about sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We Be the Echo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added sources to the article. If there were just one or two reviews or articles, I'd say that notability is in question, but with at least four articles on this band I think they are notable enough. However, I'm sure the reliability of these sources can be discussed, as even I'm a little on the fence about them. Jeremiah (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It depends on what you think is 'notable enough' Suntag. While We Be The Echo are a smaller band, they are an important current band in their genre, and in my opinon its unfair to 'delete' a band that has a worldwide appeal. There are pages of reviews etc. if you do a basic google search on the band, and they are often mentioned in other band's 'influences'. I agree that every small time band/writer etc should not be on wikipedia, however, any artist that has a worldwide following, even a modest one should be on wikipedia to be researched.Gusak
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, would appear to meet criteria #1 of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - band fails WP:BAND, including #1 (no articles from independent, reliable sources about the band - the links are to reviews for an album by the group or are promotional in nature). Now think about this: how could a strictly local (San Francisco) band have an independent article about it... from Canada? B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, indie bands will often try to get info on them published by sending material to non-local press. For instance, my site frequently gets press releases and promo material from bands in the US, even though we are based in Brisbane. It doesn't strike me as strange at all that a Canadian site would cover a US band. Also, not all of the links shown are reviews, such as this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ilk Koskelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We Be the Echo might be notable, but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. SoWhy 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel M. Laskin Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability of this honour is not easily verifiable. A Google search turns up a bunch of press releases -- [32]-- but no real news coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the Journal giving out the award doesn't have an article, why should the Award attached to the journal have one? Notability is not established. DARTH PANDAduel 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please consider the merit of the article on its own. The reason we don't have an article on the journal is probably because no one got to it yet. Very few academic journals are non-notable publications. - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plainly non-notable award. The best thing would be a redirect back to Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, but it's not there yet. In any case, the title would be confusing, because strangely there's another Daniel M. Laskin Award, given by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, for different accomplishments. --Lockley (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those two groups (the journal and the association) sound strangely similar. Are we sure that they are not the same entity? DARTH PANDAduel 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, The Association publishes the journal, see http://www.joms.org and http://www.aaoms.org/docs/awards/laskin.pdf, therefore I think this award and journal should both be redirected to American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wanderer (O.A.R. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NALBUMS. All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article for this album explains "The album was recorded while the band was still in high school, when O.A.R. was without a record label. Online distribution helped make the album popular on college campuses, where O.A.R. attained much of their fan base." No inline citations or references. Searching for the album turns up many "lyrics" websites, online store listings, reprints of Erik Crawfords All Music Guide review, reprints of Robert Hicks All Music Guide bio on the band, reprints of the English Wikipedia article, Discography listings, torrent sites but nothing of real "significant coverage". I did follow a link to Rolling Stone album Reviews O.A.R The Wanderer however it is not a review, it is just a page listing the album, release date and a place for "user submitted" reviews. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep album from notable band with a source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable album by notable artist. Coverage exists, although more would help.--Michig (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above. Debut album by a notable artist. Was self released, yes, but that is not immediate cause for deletion. The album's reviewing by Allmusic also adds to notability. A simple Google news search also gives coverage from several sources. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TimeBox Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable software article. I cannot find any reviews or significant coverages of this software; only descriptions and download mirrors - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like it falls under WP:ADS. While Wikipedia does not have an exact set of guidelines on software, I still feel that this is fails WP:NN. DARTH PANDAtalk 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Like most software, non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously non-notable, delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marathi Sahitya Sammelan. fish&karate 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vishwa Marathi Sahitya Sammelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable future event. I could not find any reliable sources, in english. Sources may exist in other languages, such as Hindi, but I can't read them. Millbrooky (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After this happens, if it turns out to be an event that generates lasting notability, fine, but not now. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, delete--very poorly written, and perhaps as a result its notability is highly questionable. Its futurity, however, is reason enough for deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ADVERT. I read the only source provided. It simply appears to be a social gathering with no notable institutions involved. LeaveSleaves talk 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- Particularly in light of this reference and the fact that Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal, a noted society in relation with Marathi literature, is involved. The page, however is still a mess, and reads like a brochure. Should be redirected to Marathi Sahitya Sammelan, until the event is held and further significance of the event is available. LeaveSleaves talk 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Redirect this article Marathi Sahitya Sammelan. And merge all salvageable content there. I have heard about this organisation some years back. It is notable, and reliable sources exist. You would find mention in the Times of India Just for the information: The language is Marathi, not Hindi, and Marathi does not have too much sources available online. Vishwa means "global". In other words, the organization is trying to set up international branches outside the state of Maharashtra, rather outside India. Also from what I recall, people here were not very happy with setting up an awards ceremony in San Francisco by the group as they felt the best place would be in India where the languages exist. For now, the notability of the international branches are not clearly established, but we can redirect it to the parent organization instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a prominent event in Marathi community. Reliable sources are IndianExpress , Sakal - most sold marathi newspaper , maayboli.com --GPPande talk! 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gppande, what's the scope of the current article? It's currently the Bay Area, but other than the US, are they having meetings elsewhere in the future? At present I feel there is not much information for a separate article. PS, the Sakaal link is a 404. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: More RS: Mid-day (English) (removed sattire link that talks about the Vishwa Marathi samelan) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- The article from Maharashtra Times quoted here is a satire and not a news item. LeaveSleaves talk 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I was wondering about that too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me explain the event, Marathi Sahitya Samelan has been organizing events for Marathi Language/people for years which is called Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Sahitya Samelan (means All India Marathi Literature event). This is first time they are going abroad and holding a function for Marathi people across the globe. Many people across the USA are going to attend in person and many in other countries are going to attend online via web. So I would change my vote to Merge with Marathi Sahitya Sammelan with separate section for this. --GPPande talk! 15:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, do not merge - remove the unsourced information and the promotional writing and there would be nothing left. This is a classic case of violating WP:CRYSTAL and writing an article without citing any support by (and in) reliable sources (and if there are indeed such reliable sources, they need to be placed in the article itself and not in this discussion to have maximum weight). If a sourcing consists of a single external link, it is not a good sign of Wikipedia worthiness. B.Wind (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sydney Harbour New Year's Eve Fireworks 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Crystalballerisim I see. ViperSnake151 00:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. Also has absolutely no information to note inside it. DARTH PANDAduel 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although not a film, the spirit of WP:NFF fits this situation. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, so, we don't know the theme, the performers involved, or the presenters? Recreate if more information surfacesm but even then, only if the information is enough to establish that this was a notable show/programme. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. This article is one of a series. It is not a controversial or problematic subject - but it is verifiable and notable - and given that it will be populated with data 2 months from now anyway, I see no reason to destroy another editor's hard work simply because they've had the good sense to plan ahead. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure-crystal balling of an event which I doubt deserves its own article anyway - why not combine these into a single article? Nick Dowling (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a generic article at Sydney Harbour New Year's Eve Fireworks but some editors prefer annual spinoffs. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. I can see how someone would want to plan ahead, but there's not enough info in the article to be useful in mainspace. Userfication allows people to work on the article without immediate deletion threats until it is ready. Gene Pool, do you want it? That said, an event attended by so many in Sydney and seen by many more is quite likely to be notable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or delete - Soon will be able to be referenced, userfying it until then would probably be a good move. — neuro(talk) 14:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arturo Alonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable, unreferenced biography. I have been unable to find any reliable sources or validate any of the claims contained in the article. Millbrooky (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability wasn't in question here. If the claims check out, he's clearly notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How is this clearly notable? If there are no references documenting the subject, it sure as hell isn't "clear" to me. JBsupreme (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor to me--delete. Not-notable, as well as illegible. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Director of a human rights organization sounds notable to me. It's the sources that are the problem. - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Omorashi Tenshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Dōjinshi are generally not notable because they are self published works. Only rarely do they receive coverage by reliable third-party sources. Disputed prod on the bases that the original creator wasn't notified. --Farix (Talk) 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If you consider a dojinshi a book, this clearly fails WP:BK. This is not notable in and of itself. DARTH PANDAtalk 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seem a self-published hentai with no references for notability, so I agree that it fails WP:BK. VG ☎ 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and a notice to anyone who might be looking at this from work: this article is not work safe. Methinks the nom should have at least mentioned this was a watersports manga or something. JuJube (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not that I've searched in Japanese, but I'm finding bumpkis on this one. Appears to fail WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- F+A Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An architectural firm with no particular claim to notability, with the possible exception of its involvement in Mall of the Emirates -- in which case an article on the mall that mentions the firm is sufficient, we don't need a separate article on the firm. I believe this one was speedy-deleted and then quickly recreated, so it seems someone has an agenda to push here. Finally, possibilities for inclusion of more reliable sources seems quite limited; of the two currently on the page only the second seems to meet the standard Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On the fence about this one. Notability seems to be the only issue. If there were any other problems with the article, deletion would be easier, but this is sourced, cogent, written to an okay standard, and factual. So let's keep it. --Lockley (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is well-referenced and non-promotional in tone. It lists awards and shows they designed several note-worthy buildings (not just the one the nominator mentions). I see no obvious problems with this article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be more of a cleanup issue than anything else. — neuro(talk) 14:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is well referenced with reliable sources, and not promotional in tone. Arsenikk (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fails WP:V; no objection to an article being created as and when the channel actually starts broadcasting. fish&karate 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weathercaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Coherent nonsense - I read into this as an emulator that's a cross between the PMX system and WeatherScan, but the article does not seem to be so. Another weather emulator (we have precedent with this type of article) (I nominated the original precedent). We don't really need emulators here. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: We have a conflict of interest winner here, folks. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Wxmancanada, the creator, has only edited that article.
- The other main contributor (User:MikeM2010) is straight out of YouTube and forums related to the topic and has a 3/5 on vandalism.
- I can't buy the KSMI Weather Service part. A URL provided on the related image is registered to 1 & 1 INTERNET AG, which screams "site made up".
- Delete, seems to exist, but secondary coverage thus far seems nonexistant. Would appear to fail WP:N for this reason. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- This isn't an emulator, it's a real channel by a true company that will soon hit TV screens when it's passed by the CRTC. Also, I don't mean to sound offensive, but where did you get the info where I had a 3/5 on vandalism? I've received no notices about me vandalizing articles since I joined. MikeM2010 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MikeM2010: The information was on your userpage. I was fishy because it definitely sounded like it wasn't right. I can't find anything with the CRTC on any filings, KSMI Ottawa on Google turns up nothing relevant, and Weathercaster is not pointing me anywhere. I want reliable sources, and if I don't get any, the article might go. If you can point me to a reliable source not on myksmi.com, I might actually close this nomination! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the valdalism counter on my profile is an indicator on how much Wikipedians in general have vandalized, not myself. See Template:Vandalism_information MikeM2010 (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry for posting this article. If you would like, you may remove the article, and I will re-post the article upon KSMI's CRTC approval. I would also like to note that KSMI is a private company, and that Weathercaster, by KSMI; is not an emulator." - wxmancanada —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- What should I do? There's obvious notability in the system...but the sources are missing. And this could now fall under G7! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.