Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 13

< June 12 June 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Was nominated for deletion here an hour earlier, but nom was incomplete. I've fixed that now, and will move my nom to a comment in the other discussion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers Game

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

Yet another non-notable drinking game. No claim of meeting WP:N in article; source given is a user-submitted site. Gsearch comes up with many drinking games involving fingers, but none showing notability for this one. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If (Mindless Self Indulgence album). Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(It's 3AM) Issues

AfDs for this article:
(It's 3AM) Issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single from a non-notable band. an unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC Fritzpoll (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think its not only a bit of WP:CRYSTAL, but since there's absolutely nothing from the band's website or in fact any reliable sources, these also fail per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX. Every one of these singles - (It's 3AM) Issues, On It, Pay For It and It (MSI Singles) only have the band's myspace as a reference, and nowhere on the page does it say anything about them. So yes, I think this could be a hoax. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. This one's going under the table. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers Game

Fingers Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod tag (without any explanation). My concern was and still is that this is a non-notable drinking game and the introductory history line screams of made-up junk. Pichpich (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.Yet another non-notable drinking game. No claim of meeting WP:N in article; source given is a user-submitted site. Gsearch comes up with many drinking games involving fingers, but none showing notability for this one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only source is a games site. Non notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:N, WP:NFT. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Daemon Hillin

William Daemon Hillin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn actor/model/something. Also likely vanity/COI/autobio article. Prod removed by IP whose sole contribs consist of three edits to that article, with the fourth being the prod removal. Upon checking the sourcing of statements, IMDB lists one indie credit (so doesn't meet ACTOR), and the LA Times coverage was trivial - Hillin was not "honored as a Millenial Mason and for his dedication to the fraternity" Rather, he was asked a question or two, and appears in about three lines of the article, as well as "showing off his Masonic bling" in the photo gallery for the article (which was used as a source and should not have been). Highest hits for his name are blog syndication of the LA Times article. As there are only a few different usernames or IPs focusing on this article, I would suggest salting this, as it seems to be a promo piece. MSJapan (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as evidenced above (only one acting role, trivial LA Times news coverage). --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Otherworld Characters

List of Otherworld Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of characters included in a non-notable anime fanfiction series. It fails to satisfy standards such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, and is unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia should not have articles on every character from every non-notable fanfiction series created by you and your friends at school. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This is about a fanfic - why wasn't it speedied? Obvious conflict of interest, if the author really wants to promote their fanfic, there are numerous fanfic sites online. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply 'Confilct of interest' is not a criterion. This might qualify as advertising, but not quite blatant spam, per se, and thus it would be controversial to speedy delete it as such. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Present article isnt worth keeping. DGG (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although "List of characters" are usually a compromise between total deletion and a page for every character, these aren't characters from a TV show at all. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is abandoned sandbox quality, nothing more. If there is ever a proper article about this topic, it should start off a little more decent. – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D Ordnance Battalion

3D Ordnance Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia surely isn't a collection of tables of battle? Not of units as small as battalions anyway? SGGH speak! 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think, if you look up what this is unit is, you would change your mind. MrPrada (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not currently show why it is any more notable than thousands of other service support battalions all around the world. Buckshot06(prof) 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Correct, it does currently show it, but if you were to look it up yourself, you would find it is in need of cleanup, not deletion. MrPrada (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is the 3d EOD. They are out there every day clearing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. EOD battalions support multiple divisions in theater. This is one of the more notable units of the entire modern U.S. military. Needs to be renamed and rewritten (cleanup), but no way we delete this. Since the battalion HQ becomes a Corps asset and the companies integrate at the battalion level, you'll find more individual stories on the companies themselves, but the 3d EOD is easily on par with any civil war regiment/battalion, which are automatically included! MrPrada (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their task or deployment, within reason, doesnt matter. I'm not sure if there is a notability section on military units (I couldnt find one). You may note that the makeup of battallions during the US civil war was very different to the current setup, and so comparing them and a war that defined a country, in some ways, with a different type of unit and a different type of war really isn't appropriate. I'm not saying the topic is non-notable, i'm saying the page as it is isn't suitable. There really appears to be little or no salvageable content; the only thing on the page is a deployment table. Ironholds 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The task certainly does matter. EOD is the most elite branch of the military, even more so then Special Forces or Rangers. There is a notability table on military units, WP:MILMOS#NOTES (and the unit section below). If you perform a search on the 3d EOD Bn and the subordinate companies that are there now, you will find significant coverage from second party sources. MrPrada (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence of them being more senior than special forces? And the notability guidelines there cover people, not units. Ironholds 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a question of seniority, as a SF Battalion is on par with an EOD battalion. But the selection for EOD is more stringent, and the school is longer. The missions are both vital to the battle space. However in the world of IEDs, Iraq and Afghanistan (where I've been my self), EOD is who you call to save lives. There are countless stories available about the work of this battalion, as I said, mainly at the company level because of the way it task organizes when it arrives in country. MrPrada (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. MrPrada, please dont get involved with articles where you might have a prejudice. Sentences like "This is the 3d EOD. They are out there every day clearing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan" as a keep reason doesn't exactly read as a bastion of NPOV. Even if you have the best of intentions, I find it's best to steer away from such articles.
Again, POV is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. And how does POV play into a deletion discussion, anyway? I think my point was to avoid having to do all the research just for an AFD discussion on something that should be common knowledge as far as MILHIST is concerned (e.g. "Not a large enough unit to have its own entry). Only the second delete really addressed a problem, which is that the article currently does not show cause for notability. Hence my points above. Below is a smattering of some articles that show notability beyond doubt for the 3d EOD Battalion. Note that these are all from OIF/OEF, these companies have histories dating back to WWI and there are articles available for WWII, Korea, and Veitnam, along with CONUS operations. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. Somebody with a userbox that indirectly says blowing up 18, 19, and 20 year old American and British kids (soldiers) is ok (because the Iraq resistance isn't using peaceful boycotts) will lecture you on not getting involved in an article because of your "lack of neutrality." Somebody who knows nothing about the military shouldn't even be commenting on whether a military-related article should be deleted, if you want to take the approach of deeming who should be able to "get involved" with articles.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Post. "The weapons are homemade, cobbled together from artillery shells or other munitions, and hidden in such things as a clump of dirt, a soda can or a dead animal. According to military officials ..."
  • Miami Herald. " Tim Everhard, commander of the 3rd Ordnance Battalion, which is housed at Baghdad International Airport and specializes in explosive removal. ..." (5 related)
  • Yakima Herald-Republic. "Yakima's 53rd Ordnance Company spent seven months defusing Afghanistan, disposing of some of those bombs, disarming booby traps and taking out the land ...
  • USA Today. " He's a specialist in the Army's 53rd Ordnance Company, based in Yakima, Wash. The grave, US soldiers have been told, contains the body of a small boy killed ..."
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer. " "We haven't positively identified what they were yet," said Lt. Karl Reinhard of the Army's 3rd Ordnance Battalion. "Almost certainly it's military, ..."
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch " Soldiers from the 53rd Ordnance company, based in Yakima, Wash., have disposed of more than 200 mines and unexploded bombs since arriving, concentrating on ..."
  • Yakima Herald-Republic. " YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER - For members of the Army's 53rd Ordnance Company, the rule was and is that producing publicity of any sort would cost you a case of ..."
  • The News Tribune. " About two dozen soldiers from 53rd Ordnance Company at the Yakima Training Center have been in Afghanistan for a few weeks now, clearing mines and ..."
  • Yakima Herald-Republic. " They're the highly-trained 53rd Ordnance Company, experts in explosives of all kinds. They've called Yakima home since 1987. ..."
  • The Guardian. "The 787th Ordnance Company was

responsible for destroying all remaining wreckage for the Air Force ..."

  • Monterey County Herald. " Deputies then contact the 787th Ordnance Company based at Moffett Field in Mountain View, which is summoned to examine the findings. ..."
  • San Mateo County Times. " The official with the 787th Ordnance Company (EOD), responsible for "explosive ordnance disposal" and based at Moffett Field in Mountain View, ..."
  • Questions and Observations. " They called in a two-man team from the 759th Ordnance Company (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). Protocol, as far as Oh knew, dictated that someone in Moss’s ..."
  • Washington Post. "759th Ordnance Company (EOD). While deployed to Iraq for the early part of OIF-1 (and for all of it), systems were just being established to get all the ..."
  • Charlotte Observer. " Boudreau, Freligh and Wildfong were explosive ordnance disposal specialists assigned to the 707th Ordnance Company at Fort Lewis, Wash. Acting Army Maj. ..." (76 related including Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, UPI, Erie Times-News, New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Delta Democrat-Times, Syracuse Herald Journal)
  • CBS News. " Craig, Galewski, and Maugans were part of 710th Ordnance Company, a small unit on a Navy submarine base in San Diego. Galewski's wife, Christine, heard from ..." (9 related, including San Diego Union Tribune, Dallas Morning News)
  • Army News Service. " Sgt. 1st Class Neil Morrison, and Spc. Joshua Peltz, of the 710th Ordnance Company helped prepare the munitions for destruction. ..."
There are really too many of these to list all at once. Google scholar and google books also have a number of resources. I agree that the current form needs to change, but there is no cause for deletion, only cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think press coverage for military units is a good way of defining their notability. Look at the SAS; they were practically unknown until the Iranian Embassy siege. Nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work, even if it's just material to be included in the eventual page. Ironholds 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice In this form the article cannot be kept becuase of the nominators concerns, however if sufficient information can be pulled to rebuild the article with some meat on what is essentially bear bones then I would be more open to keeping it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article does not really stand out as an interesting encyclopedia article, the topic is notable -- more so than various railroad stations, ships, etc. that have WP listings. (I know about "other stuff" :-)) Redddogg (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is about the content as well as the topic; it's currently just a table and is completely useless to anyone not familiar with the topic. Ironholds 08:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable enough. The content is lacking. It simply needs attention from an editor (or two) to bring it up to an acceptable standard. It's only been in existence five minutes, give it some time for people to work on it. Sounds like Mr Prada has interesting information, with citations and references, could be just what it needs. Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean conflict of interest! Austin46 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didnt say it did, but the tone of voice he's using does. Ironholds 09:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the tone in these discussions hardly seems relevant. What's important is the tone used in an article. If you know about a subject and provide refernces to back up your statements, it's really perfectly possible to write neutrally about it. And I'm sure if there was a problem with NPOV, it would be picked up on by other editors. In terms of this discussion it seems to me that Mr Prada's background knowledge is useful to the debate. Which I came to with an open mind. Austin46 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 3rd Ordnance Battalion (EOD) (United States) to follow the MILMOS naming conventions for battalions after this discussion closes. MrPrada (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Battalion sized units are notable; needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Unit has unique mission, too. Not a typical support unit.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, any future merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Second Life

Big Brother Second Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this is notable at all. It's unreferenced and in all means pointless. Tresiden (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Per Fraudy's reason.Gears Of War 03:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Ahem* 10-second Google search reveals sources from Reuters and the BBC. Miremare 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The {{afd1}} notice had not been placed on the article. This has now been corrected.Gazimoff WriteRead 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable sources to verify the article and demonstrate notability have now been identified, which I have incorporated into the article. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of demonstrable notability, and thanks to User:Miremare for digging up the sources. Ford MF (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Second Life. Seeing as it was a sponsored event, it could easily be put into the Second Life article.
  • Merge into Second Life and forward page. Virek (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources establishing notability. Considering the length of the Second Life article cannot see how a proper merge could take place. Davewild (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUB English Society

QUB English Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

University society with questionable notability. They've had some famous visiting speakers, but I'm sure most such societies have and I'm not sure it makes the society itself notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G12. The original version was far too much a copyright violation to stand. If anyone wants the sources from the article, especially those Orlady added, they should be provided upon request. GRBerry 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

AfDs for this article:
Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization, referenced only by club's own site and other sources not meeting requirements for establishing notability. Hellno2 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom—lack of third party sources, non-notable. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but drastically reduce the size of the article. The final article should look more like Georgia Appalachian Trail Club or Dartmouth Outing Club. As an organization that has existed for more than 60 years and is responsible for maintaining a large chunk of the Appalachian Trail, this club is inherently notable. Independent sources exist; for example, the role of the club and its member Stan Murray in relocating 65 miles of the Appalachian Trail is documented in this reference. If the massive amount of trivial detail were removed from the article, it would look like a reasonable article (not the appalling collection of self-sourced trivia that currently exists). --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Age of an organization is not a free pass to notability, especially if this is not referenced from a Reliable source. The organization's own site does not meet this requirement. Hellno2 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My recognition of the need for reliable sources is one of the reasons why my comment included that link to the Appalachian Trail Conference's 75h anniversary publication on the history of the Appalachian Trail. I've done some edits in the article, but have not had time to get deep enough into it to insert that source. As for the founding date, I am adding an independent citation on the date. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Subsequent to the above comment, I've made several more edits to the article, including citing some additional online sources. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete , copyvio from http://www.tehcc.org/history.htm. Corvus cornixtalk 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a copyvio. There is no question that parts of the article are highly derivative of that page (i.e., content and sequence of information), but the wording of the article is different (not even including the wording that I have changed). --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing a word here or there so that it isn't a direct word for word copy doesn't make it any less a copyvio. Corvus cornixtalk 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Nguyen

Tony Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent vanity page for a (very minor) reality TV star. The claim to fame appears to be based on a single appearence on Rich Bride Poor Bride. I've seen reality TV participants with much more major appearences than this deleated by AFD a number of times. A one shot appearance like this just does not rise to the level of notability, IMHO. As a side note, though the page at this name has been deleted several times previously, I see no sign in the deleted history that the previous versions were for the same person as the article in question. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. At most he might deserve a mention on the show's page or on a contestants page as per List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), but not his own. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. This all started with the article's creator trying to place a fairly POV mention of himself on the show's page. The page is not much more than a stub, so it's hard for me to see how mention of any one specific contestant would not overweigh the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. Cordless larry's suggestion about a mention on the show's might be an alternative. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One episode, oooo. Delete. – thedemonhog talk • edits 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One event does not make for notability. There may be a case for having a 1-line bio in an episode list section of Rich Bride Poor Bride, if that. (I assume there are TV listings and local paper articles attesting to the 1 episode.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete*. I was going to submit this myself, but someone beat me to it. I'm kinda surprised this doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Softball League

Congressional Softball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about an amateur softball league that fails to establish its notability (notability is NOT inherited) Thetrick (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – unreferenced, non-notable amateur softball league. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of business have similar amateur leagues... just because congressional staffers play in this one doesn't make it more notable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here are some sources that can help establish notability. I'm extremely busy right now, but if someone else can integrate them I think they fit under the burden of notability: NYT NYT (although I admit that one isn't too substantial) Daily Show, and CBS. I'm sure there's more out there if you do a bit deeper digging. --YbborTalk 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Ybbor's references make this marginally notable, but it is still just an amateur softball league.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – non-notable amateur softball league --T-rex 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially an in-house amateur league with such assertions of notability as there are, unsourced and failing WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read Ybbor's sources, and they are solely about the split of the league, so I am not persuaded. If anything, they evidence that the new league is notable, not that the original league is - but more realistically it was a slow news day item, and not something of encyclopedic signficance. GRBerry 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hearts#Strategy. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts strategy

Hearts strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes the strategy for the Hearts card game, and fails WP:NOTGUIDE as well as being nonnotable. Artichoker[talk] 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hearts is a card game just as relevant as Poker. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_strategy for an example of a WikipediA article that is exactly the same and would/should never be considered for deletion. Jonsan32 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it absolutely is notable. There is a lot of strategy in the game and merging the content with the article on the game itself is impractical because of the large amount of content. Keeping the strategy page, while it may not completely pass WP:GUIDE, is the sensible thing to do, and per WP:WIARM, "The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps [thee spirit and the practice of the rule]. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored." The strategy page being standaone makes more sense on Wikipedia than does it being merged or deleted. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is unencyclopedic. Do we really need an entire article devoted to the strategy of one card game? I think it should at least be merged to the Hearts article, as a lot of it could be trimmed. Artichoker[talk] 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete by Antandrus , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The White Cane

The White Cane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another book by a "George Haddeus". No assertion of notability, reliable sources, or google hits, as seen here, it also may have a COI. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete by Antandrus , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love America

Love America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Google pulls up nothing. [1] It may also have a conflict of interest, as the author of the article may have authored the book himself. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The entry is completely unreferenced and it is not written by notable writer. There is no indication of notability.--NAHID 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-its non-notable and cannot be verified.--SRX--LatinoHeat 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has indeed improved since the AfD started, but despite this there has been no agreement reached on whether the subject meets the notability guidelines or not. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Cow-Girl

Mad Cow-Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician. Being a candidate in an election does not make a person notable. Of the two news sites offered as evidence of notability, one does not mention her and the other includes her only in a brief round-up of minor party attitudes to the election. Warofdreams talk 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-the sources provided show little verifiability, however, when searched on Google alongside the name of the Monster Raving Looney Party, it gets a quite a few hits, that verifies and proves her notability as a politician. [2] --SRX--LatinoHeat 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting "Monster Raving Loony Party" and "Mad Cow Girl" in quotes gives only 59 ghits. Once you remove the OMRLP's own sites, lists of candidates in seats in which she's stood, Everything2 and a couple of blogs, there's very little left. They are: [3] noting that she won a seat on a community board (in an election with a total turnout of 338 people) and [4] which has a quote from her as Party Secretary of the OMRLP - but as the only one on the net, it's not enough for me to see this as notable. Warofdreams talk 20:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The David Davis by-election controversy increases her notability and has led to her getting mentions on national news sites. The google test is a load of **** any way. If google has everything why are be even bothering writing an encyclopedia? Understandably the creation of an article on a frivolous political candidate causes the deletionist cabal to exercise its wrath but if one steps back from following Kafkaesque notability guidelines Wikipedia is stronger for this article than without it Francium12 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in and of herself, and the article provides no assertion of notability to Wikipedia standards. I repeated Warofdream's Google search and confirm that she is barely verifiable, let alone actually notable. She's barely getting news coverage, nothing actually about her, and is right on the "famous for one event" thing that we don't do. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Searching her real name Rosalyn Warner increases the number of google hits. Francium12 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get 58 ghits for that, about half of which are her, and all of those appear to be lists of election candidates or results with no additional information. Warofdreams talk 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if she had won, I'm not 100% convinced she would be notable --T-rex 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forget Google, the article makes no claim to notability. Running for office doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice A possible Speedy this one, and I've been having something of an argument about this earlier today. This woman has barely "won" any more than 200 votes in the elections she had stood in. She is no more a politician than me - I've stood in 6 elections and failed each time, do I get a page? The Monster Raving Loony Party stand in almost all by-elections, making them notable, but indiviudal candidates are not. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a serial candidate, per ample precedent on candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice - the best claim to notability in the article is that she is the OMRLP's campaigns officer [edit: and secretary, and archivist]. But I don't think that's really adequate. Without prejudice, on the (unlikely) possibility that she might win. DWaterson (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The credibility of the OMRLP is on the line here, given that Davis may actually be a mainstream loon[5]. It's clear that in fielding Mad Cow-Girl they have chosen a highly electable candidate. She is therefore the strongest Loony candidate for a very long time, and for that alone she is highly notable. Just because one or two editors above may have failed political ambitions above does not mean we should sacrifice the integrity of Wikipedia itself.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is one of the most noteable candidates of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who has consistently contested elections over an extended period. Such politicans consistently present themselves for elections and by-elections all over the country and their success should not be measured by votes alone. Cover, say, the most active four of this established political party and by-election voters will be well served. Recently I've seen, first hand, the aggressive intolerance some editors possess for this party and we should not let the Wikipedia suffer because of such people. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I hope people will be directed to your talk page to show that "aggressive intolerance" is not what I am displaying. I have no problem with your party, as my proposed policy on political parties proves if you go to my user area and follow the link to the proposal. I do have an issue with non-notable constantly failed candidates having articles here. I have, you are right to state, failed political ambitions, hence why there is zip liklihood of having an article in my name. Does Mad Cow Girl satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability? Quite clearly, and with all neutrality in tact, the answer is no, the response delete. I also have to point out that I have been very civil throughout the conversation we have had on your talk page, I trust you will remain civil too. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You can't pretend to be suprised by my description unless you were pretending to read my replies to you on my talk page that you referred people to. You shocked me with your aggression and your lack of neutrality regarding the OMRLP and it's members. You made it clear that you are not someone suitable to judge the noteability of Mad Cow-Girl. You were not civil and scared me to degree that I was forced to refuse to continue to discuss matters with you. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surrealist Historian please familiarise yourself with WP:Civil on how to conduct yourself on wikipedia as making unjustified attacks on another editor is not acceptable and could see you ability to edit here removed. - Galloglass 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving my side on an aggressive discussion that caused me to become intimidated and scared. Of course I am prone, of course, to saw emotional things while this is still raw. I will read the guidelines you referred me to. I already refraining from directly editing Wikipedia pages. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I think what the user is getting at is people understandably make a knee-jerk reaction to delete when they see an article called Mad Cow-Girl. Take the comment on the talk page of the article which questions whether this candidate is a politician. Well she has stood at 4 elections on a political platform.... Francium12 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have no issue with her name at all. Does this candidate, regardles of party, satisfy notabiliy guide lines? Her party is notable, I have no problem at all, whatsoever, with the OMRLP, I hope that is quite clear. But Wikipedia may have an issue with non-notable, constantly failed candidates who sometimes take less than 2% of the vote having articles. I am not being aggressive towards an individual person, I am simply trying to square this article with policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Doktorbuk above links a conversation he has had on The Surrealist Historian's talk page and my comment about failed political ambitions. Just to confirm that The Surrealist Historian and 91.106.28.24 and different editors and that Doktorbuk has associated us in error.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Have we lost our minds? The whole point behind the notability guideline was to ensure that non-stub articles could be written in a way such that the content was verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Here we have a non-stub article whose content is thoroughly verified and neutral, and you are opining that it be deleted because it supposedly fails a sufficient but not necessary condition for its achieved state? Absurd. Skomorokh 12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even measuring the topic (unnecessarily) against the basic notability guideline for people, we find that the article more than qualifies:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject…If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added). The subject has coverage in no less than seven major British news outlets referenced in the article, for at least one of which she is the primary topic of an article.[6] By any measure, the outcome here is obvious. Skomorokh 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely agree with Skomorokh above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply not notable like many of these candidate articles. Completely fails to meet criteria under WP:Notability for inclusion and is not prominent in own party. - Galloglass 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have shown above that she meets WP:BIO on two counts; non-trivial coverage in a reliable source and trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please address how this does not confer notability. Skomorokh 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of this coverage is about this individual, indeed any mention is simply in passing. I really am at a loss as to how you think this helps meet WP:BIO - Galloglass 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strongly. She is monster raving notable. Her antics have been reported by the mainstream media on many occasions. 86.29.205.163 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable candidate. Mas 18 dl (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have well-established precedent to not have articles on prospective parliamentary candidates until they get elected - this applies when they're serious politicians, so I fail to see why it shouldn't apply to joke candidates. Please, kill this article. Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. By-election candidates are more notable than those at general elections; minor candidates even more so if major parties don't field candidates. Kelso21 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Candidate appeared on page 8 of my Sunday Paper, is she still not notable?. If only those so concerned with notability spent their time creating articles and working on them, think what wikpedia would look like. 137.222.229.74 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I assume this [7]is the The Independent article referred to. As you can see the coverage is minimal to say the least. The only reason she appears to be mentioned is due to the legal requirement to mention all candidates. - Galloglass 11:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The coverage is small but not simply minimal. And the legal requirements only apply to formal candidates once the writ has been moved, which doesn't apply to this newspaper article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will be available on the internet in the period after the close of nomination, hence the requirement. Could you explain how you think this article helps Rosalyn meets WP:BIO? - Galloglass 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is absolutely no requirement for a newspaper to mention potential candidates for an election which formally did not even exist when the article was published just because it may be accessible later. For whatever reason the Independent chose to mention her. As for WP:BIO I don't see your problem; WP:POLITICIAN says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. and WP:BIO says If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. This article is one of multiple articles providing non-trivial coverage. On its own it would not be sufficient, but it all adds up. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But so far its all trivial coverage. Had I been able to find any that was more than this I'd be more than willing to change my opinion, but nothing that we've seen so far has even come close. If you have found anything that is non-trivial then please point us all in that direction. - Galloglass 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument is in essence over the definition of trivial; I do not accept that these mentions are trivial or simply legally required. See the mention of Bananaman Owen in [8] for an example which is genuinely trivial and simply in fulfilment of legal obligations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All very interesting I'm sure but where is this non-trivial coverage of Rosalyn that you keep talking about? - Galloglass 09:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the above does not mention Rosalyn Warner in the slightest in the link indicated I assume you don't actually have any non-trivial coverage then. - Galloglass 10:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can only assume you are willfully misunderstanding the comments here, and see no useful purpose in continuing this conversation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you dont actually have any examples of non-trivial you can show us then. - Galloglass 10:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As if the topic wasn't abundantly appropriate on multiple grounds already, a second item of non-trivial coverage has been added to go with the already sufficient verified coverage in multiple sources and the non-trivial coverage in the Daily Record endorsement. Skomorokh 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A decent quality article, regarding someone who is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.79.25 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep If any of the major or even serious minor parties had chosen to contest the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, she wouldn't be notable, but if she remains the only opposition in this farce, she has for now enough notability that I wouldn't agree to a deletion until at least after the by-election when her impact (and thus her notability) can be fully assessed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete She's not notable as the candidate of a perennial minor party in a by-election, most of the article on her simply consists of statistics which prove how non-notable she is, and if she later becomes notable, a new article can always be created. Luke Parks (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've given my opinion above but I believe it's relevant to the discussion that the Daily Record say "Vote Cow-Girl" [9]

--91.106.28.32 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB I draw editors attention to the following Deletion Log -
(Deletion log); 18:39 . . PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Madcow (politican)" (WP:PROD, reason was non-notable joke candidate)

doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: Please bear in mind the fact that the article has undergone significant improvement during the course of this AfD, that early !votes in this AfD should be interpreted in this light, and that at minimum meets the the Heymann standard. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't dare start the article on Bananaman Owen standing in Henley ! Francium12 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the current state of this byelection makes her important. The MRLP is also relevant in that it reflects the devalued status of politicians in UK society User:Cerddaf 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - increasingly notable candidate in a somewhat loony election: Wikipedia is the better for the existence of this article. PamD (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But Wiki is not a crystal ball. She could, I concede, win this election. Or she could, as she did in Sunderland, get 1% of the vote, continuing her losing streak. As it stands now, as things currently are, she is a constantly and continued losing candidate. And losing non-notable candidates (Elizabeth Shenton, recently) have their articles deleted. Incedentally, I voted to delete the Elizabeth Shenton article. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a rather ridiculous representation of keep arguments. No-one who has expressed support for the article has proposed that she is notable in light of her chances of winning. I would also be interested in hearing your argument as to why the current version of the article, with both multiple trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources, and non-trivial coverage in at least one, fails the general notability guideline, because at present, your arguments are sounding very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply My argument is simple. As it stands, after she has stood in numerous elections, Mad Cow is a constantly failing, non-notable candidate, who won less than 1% of the vote in a general election, failing WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. (coming late, judging current state of article) Accepting it is based on a single current event, I think she is just about notable in this election in terms of the notability standard for candidates. What tips the balance for me is the presence of a 'political career' if it can be called that, the profile of the OMRL (whose article by the way needs some serious work), and her role in this election, which is seeing her being cast in sources as a credible candidate in a two horse loony race, rather than just the usual joke also ran. And with a centralised page of her own, at least the repeat insertions of her info across multiple other articles can be cut down to the appropriate length. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. But WP:POLITICIAN clearly states that an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability so in other words they need to be notable for something else than simply being a candidate and there currently is nothing else. - Galloglass 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am going on the rest of the section: ...although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." . Selective quotation is bad. Very bad. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As there has been no significant coverage apart from one mention in her local Sunderland paper (all others being about the by-election itself) it simply does not apply. Are you not being rather selective in ignoring the former part of the quote yourself? - Galloglass 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your claim that the coverage is not significant is simply that, your claim, and seems to be based on some rather idiosyncratic interpretations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not claiming anything dear boy, just reading whats written. - Galloglass 20:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makarska International Championships

Makarska International Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable tennis tournament, allegedly held for a single time in 1988. The only four G-hits come from this article and Wiki mirrors. No reliable sources about the tournament. Fails WP:V, WP:N.  RGTraynor  19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrolution

Retrolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very short article about a protologism that has likely not yet become popularised. There is no citation for the claim, and it is very probable that the word was coined by the author. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM. I can't find any reliable coverage through a google search (only things that have popped up are some design websites, and events at nightclubs). Fraud talk to me 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge seems contraindicated since the content is unsourced. Pigman☿ 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa fire dept

Louisa fire dept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to violate WP:SOAP and I cannot see how it could ever meet WP:N. Oroso (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notability can be established. Article, though, does need improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards, including categorization.Hellno2 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not confirmed in the article's current state. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Louisa, Kentucky Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a minor site as this suggests. Notability is not established. Artene50 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Louisa, Kentucky. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The article largely consists of a list of what the fire station does, but they don't differ from what one would normally consider duties of a fire station. Louisa Fire Department is the biggest fire department in a county of 15,000 people- notability aside, common sense dictates that this is not Wikipedia material. A mention at Lawrence County or Louisa, KY would be appropriate, but I'm gonna have to say delete on this one. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge, because the material is unsourced. GRBerry 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect as it obvious that it is notable enough for its own article. Merging is the clear choice. --JForget 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fire department of town with population 2,018. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per general consensus below, lack of "mergeable" content. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Players theatres

List of Famous Players theatres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, just like the Galaxy Cinemas list up for AfD below. No sources at all, unable to verify. Like its sister list, there is no need for this list on Wikipedia. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect – Why can’t we make a subpage page on Cineplex Entertainment main page and just merge this list to the subpage? It makes sense to me in that if an individual is looking for Cineplex they may also want to know how many theaters they operate and the location of the theaters. Just a thought. ShoesssS Talk 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with the Galaxy Cinemas list, there are verifiable sources for this list, they just need to be added. I also don't agree with referring to the lists as "listcruft" because it makes them sound worth less than they are. Creativity-II (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have readded the link that Realky deleted. And I agree with the reasons stated above, and suggest a single page of "List of Cineplex Theaters by Brand" since Cineplex owns Alliance, Cinema City, Cineplex Odeon, Coliseum, Colossus, Famous Players 'Traditional', Scotiabank Theaters (with Scotiabank), and Silver City. These are ALL Verifiable and if you had checked the Cineplex Entertainment List of Theaters, instead of just deleting, you'd have seen that. AllanVS (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The link to the list was left out when I reverted the article back to the version which included the AfD notice. User:AllanVS, the original author of this non-notable list, deliberately removed the AfD notice from the article, a strong violation of Wikipedia policy. I neglected to restore the link. However, I will note that the reference is a primary sources and not independent, and therefore not considered as reliable as independent sources per Wikipedia policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And... I have no idea why User:NawlinWiki removed the link again. Again, the link itself is not an issue. The only reason it was deleted before is because I messed up when I was restoring the AfD notice. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of article is advertising. The place for the information is on the chain's web page--that's one of the prime reasons the company maintains a web presence. They can do it better than we can, and its more appropriate. there's nothing encyclopedic about a list of individual branches of a chain, movies, restaurants, or whatever. We normally delete them all. FWIW, though, the chains list of its own stores is probably sufficiently rliale as a source if the material were worth including in the first place. DGG (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC
  • Merge Not enough information to warrant it's own article. AniMate 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - DGG's reasoning is sound, and I'd add that the title itself is problematic. If the list purports to be of "famous" theaters, it must certainly have reliable sources to support the assertion - probably for each theater. I'm not saying it can't exist without all those cites, but...it doesn't have any.  Frank  |  talk  11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC) and it's an advertising list, which is part of what Wikipedia is not.  Frank  |  talk  20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "Famous Players" is simply a brand name, not an assertion that each theater is somehow famous. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DOH - you're correct, of course. Thanks - I've amended above accordingly.  Frank  |  talk  20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arugments in favour of delete highlighted a lack of encyclopaedic value for a list of this type, combined with policy based reasoning (WP:DIRECTORY, WP:ADVERTISING). Seraphim♥Whipp 14:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Galaxy Cinemas theatres

List of Galaxy Cinemas theatres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, no sources at all, not able to verify, not notable. There's really no use for this list on Wikipedia at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect – Why can’t we make a subpage page on Cineplex Entertainment main page and just merge this list to the subpage? It makes sense to me in that if an individual is looking for Cineplex they may also want to know how many theaters they operate and the location of the theaters. Just a thought. ShoesssS Talk 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are verifiable sources for this list, they just need to be added. Creativity-II (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The verifiable source is located in the link at the top. I also added the entries myself. Also, if we remove this list, then any list of cinemas - from Famous Players to Singapore to Thailand - will have to be deleted. So Perhaps merge it with LIst of Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon under one "List of Locations for Cineplex Entertainment Theaters, by Brand"? AllanVS (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I fail to see the inherent notability or need for any list of cinemas, or any other lengthy list of a type or brand of businesses, at least as a stand-alone article. (Shorter lists might be OK as part of the main article about the subject.) If there are other such lists on Wikipedia now, I think they should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • so should List of fast food restaurants Be removed as well t hen? It's a list, but again, it's unnoteable, and unverifiable technically speaking. Also, perhaps, List of Toronto subway and RT stations should be removed? The only proof that they exisit is people put them there. So if these lists are 'unnoteable' then 99% of all lists are 'unnoteable' AllanVS (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in my opinion, they are not notable in the vast majority of cases. List of fast food restaurants should stay, because it refers to companies, not individual locations. Subway/train/transit stations? Yes, they should go if I had my way, but I don't in that case. (And I'm a railroad buff.) But there is nothing inherently notable about lists of individual locations for chains of any kind of business. By comparison, should we have a list of all locations for McDonald's? Or Tim Hortons? (Mmmm...Timbits.) You can see how things can get out of hand pretty easily. Moreover, why should we have a separate article with a list of a particular business, when a link to that business' web site, placed in the main article about that business, would supply that exact same information? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of article is advertising. The place for the information is on the chain's web page--that's one of the prime reasons the company maintains a web presence. They can do it better than we can, and its more appropriate. there's nothing encyclopedic about a list of individual branches of a chain, movies, restaurants, or whatever. We normally delete them all. The lists of fast food restaurants in a chain are always deleted, and such content usually removedgfrom articles on the chain as well. If you see any that have excaped us so far, please nominate them for afd--or even prod. DGG (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DGG. Also, the items in the list are unlikely to ever be articles themselves, so there's no potential navigation purpose to this list; and it's a violation of WP:DIRECTORY which Wikipedia Is Not. Lists of train stations and even subway stations have an encyclopedic use for readers interested in railroads, transportation, local history and other topics, as you can often see by clicking on the links to individual stations (and the "What links here" link at individual station articles). Lists for newspaper chains have a similar broad interest. Where is the broad interest in a cinema chain list? What encyclopedic purpose would it serve that would be different from a directory? A list embedded in an article about the chain could be justified, perhaps, as information that helps the reader better understand that chain. But not when you reach the size of this list combined with the other two lists for other divisions of Cineplex Entertainment. Editors who worked on this list might want to consider the approach taken in Cinema in Delhi, where the history and interesting features of some of the movie theaters is described. I'm not suggesting that anyone try to do the exact same thing with cinema in, say, Vancouver, but it's the kind of cinema-related article that can be done and can survive AfD (it did), and I suspect it was more interesting to research and write. Just a suggestion. Noroton (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Ottawa-Gatineau cinemas is a Canadian list of cinemas that gives descriptions, history and doesn't look like advertising. Noroton (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On the surface, this article looks slightly better than List of Famous Players theatres (for which I also advocated deletion), because it has "sources." However, the sources appear to be all from one place, and they look like self-published research, which doesn't really fit WP:RS to me. (No opinion is implied on whether or not there is also any connection to the author of the articles.) This is mainly advertising, which is one of the many things Wikipedia is not.  Frank  |  talk  12:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimity of respondents; sole delete preference was per nom. Editors are advised that AfD is not cleanup and WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion.Skomorokh 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thraco-Roman

Thraco-Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In its current form, there's no point of this article to exist. The whole article is written from a strong Romanian nationalist POV. It assumes some very bold claims, which are usually not accepted by mainstream historians, such as:

  • the Thracians, Getae and Dacians were the same people
  • these people were the same people as the Romanians (the source language of substrate of Romanian is not clearly known)
  • many claims like Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" which are nothing but nationalist propaganda
  • it assumes that every Roman Emperor born in the Balkans is a Thraco-Roman.
I agree, if one uses a sensu stricto meaning of Thraco-Roman concept, although some of the them have a certain Thracian/Dacian origin i.e.: Regalianus, Galerius, Maximinus, etc, .--Bluehunt (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one day, an article should exist about the actual Thraco-Roman culture (which existed in Bulgaria, not in Romania), not as an anachronistic word for "Romanians in the Roman era". bogdan (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not agree, the article should not be deleted--Bluehunt (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC):[reply]

the article may be POV and may need corrections, but your position is biased:

  • Herodotus names Dacians as part of Thracians
But modern linguistics considers that affirmation as dubious. bogdan (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your "modern linguistics" (which ones?) did live in the same epoch as Thracians? Herodotus did. Is Thracian or maybe Dacian language known so one can have a ferm opinion? Bluehunt (talk)
well, Herodotus certainly has never been to Dacia or Thrace and he based his book on what he heard from travelers, especially traders who went to those places and were likely not experts in languages. Some modern linguists (for instance, I. I. Russu) agree with Herodotus, while others (like V. Gheorghiev) consider them to be completely different languages. In any case, neither version is certain, so claiming one version over the other as true is against the rules of WP:NPOV. bogdan (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowere in the article is claimed that Dacian and Thracian were identical languages.
The whole article is written based on that assumption. The article is about Thraco-Romans, but it talks mostly about Dacians, Getae and Moesians. bogdan (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because Dacians/Getae, Moesians are all Thracians / Thracian tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehunt (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if the romanized Gauls are called Gallo-Roman how would you call the local, Thracian romanized population of Balkans? --79.114.19.33 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC) --Bluehunt (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not important, what is important is that ancient peoples North of Balkans were romanized and stand at the origin of Romanians. This has nothing to do with presumed continuity between Dacians and Romanians. Further, if Herodotus is wrong so is Strabo too: in "Geographica" Book VII, Chapter 3, 10 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7C*.html) “in the country of the Thracians and of those of their number who are Getae”.
We should not asume that the ancient Greek travelers were less inteligent compared to modern imigrants, whom can easily certify that Italian and Romanian are related languages. The work of V. Gheorghiev is seen by many as a marginal trend of the whole Thracian revival movement in Bulgaria, promoted by Todor Zhivkov. --Bluehunt (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article asumes not that Dacians are the same people with Romanians, but presumes that the latinized Balkan peoples, north of Jircek line are at the origin of Romanians
  • the article does not claim Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" . Hippolyte of Antioch (died ~AD 250) in his On apostles, Origen in the third book of his Commentaries on Genesis (AD 254), Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (AD 340), and other sources, like the Usaard's Martyrdom written between 845-865,[1] Jacobus de Voragine in the Golden Legend (~1260),[2] mention that Saint Andrew preached in Scythia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehunt (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
from that link: "His travels spanned into Ethiopia, Scythian Russia, Asia Minor and Greece". So, which part of the Balkans is in Scythian Russia? bogdan (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not deservs a comment Bluehunt (talk)
What I mean is that Andrew's voyage to Romania is just a Romanian nationalist myth, invented quite recently. All the ancient sources talk about Andrew's voyage to Scythia, which is indeed in Russia and Ukraine, nothing about Dobruja/Scythia Minor. You can read about this and other Romanian national myths (which are very present in this article) in History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness by Lucian Boia. bogdan (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not talking about Andrew's voyage to Romania, as you imply above, or to Scytia Minor. The archeological evidence of early christianty in Scytia Minor and Transylvania is much more important. And again, we cannot talk about Romanians or Romania, at that epoch.--Bluehunt (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it talks about Christianity in an area where there were no Thracians nor Thraco-Romans! The assumption that the Getae were Thracians is just one POV. bogdan (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you accept only authors with your POV: "Further, if Herodotus is wrong so is Strabo too: in "Geographica" Book VII, Chapter 3, 10 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7C*.html) “in the country of the Thracians and of those of their number who are Getae”. We should not asume that the ancient Greek travelers were less inteligent compared to modern imigrants, whom can easily certify that Italian and Romanian are related languages. The work of V. Gheorghiev is seen by many as a marginal trend of the whole Thracian revival movement in Bulgaria, promoted by Todor Zhivkov." copied from above --79.114.19.33 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)--Bluehunt (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accepting just one POV: I'm just acknowledging that there are more points of view and that the article assumes only one is true, which is against the Wikipedia standards. bogdan (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if so, I'm inviting you to write and improve the article, to raise its quality to the equivalent Gallo-Roman--Bluehunt (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thracians, Getae and Dacians

After Herodotus, several sources from Antiquity claim the ethnic or linguistic identity of the two people Dacians/Getae. In his Geographia, Strabo wrote about the two tribes speaking the same language (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7C*.html#3.13). Justin considers the Dacians are the successors of the Getae: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus: "Daci quoque suboles Getarum sunt" (The Dacians as well are a scion of the Getae). In his Roman history, Cassius Dio shows the Dacians to live on both sides of the Lower Danube, the ones south of the river (today's northern Bulgaria), in Moesia, and are called Moesians, while the ones north of the river are called Dacians. He argues that the Dacians are "either Getae or Thracians of Dacian race" (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/51*.html#22.7) but also stresses the fact that he calls the Dacians with the name used "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and that he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not" (67.6)(http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/67*.html#6.2).--Bluehunt (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because ancient sources say something, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Jordanes thought that the Goths and Getae were the same people, but we now know for sure that the Getae were not Germanic like the Goths. Anyway, the current scholarship (and the debate on whether Dacian and Thracian were the same language) is summarized in this paragraph in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture:
Until 1957, it was normally presumed that Thracian might also embrace Dacian, the language spoken north of the Danube, and the term Thraco-Dacian occurs widely in linguistic works. Reasons for questioning the ascription of all east Balkan tribes to a single language is the toponymic evidence which shows considerable disparity between terms employed south of Danube and those found north in historically "Dacian" territory.
J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, 1997, Taylor and Francis
As such, assuming that Thracian and Dacian are the same language is just one POV of modern science. Disregarding the other POV, (which is quite notable), is against the Wikipedia policy. bogdan (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not concerned with establishing the truth of national identities, just reporting what can be found in sources. It seems clear both from the article and the discussion above that the national concept that is the subjct of this article has been referred to widely for a period of millennia. That's enough to justify an article.DGG (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understood my point:
    The article assumes that Dacians are Thracians, that the Getae are Thracians, that the people from Scythia Minor are Thacians, that the Moesians are Thracians, and even that the people from Pannonia and Illyricum are Thracians. It uses the word "Thracians" as an all-encompassing term for "Ancient pre-Roman people in the Balkans". It's POV and OR. bogdan (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfect well. You disagree with the accuracy of the content. That's a content dispute, and does not affect the validity of having an article, if any sources, now or two thousand years ago, have been calling it this. DGG (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are 64 Google books and 17 Google Scholar hits for the term. This means that it was not made up for Wikipedia, and if the article over-reaches the sources, there are other ways to resolve the issue besides deletion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis is the universal and accepted view of Balkan history everywhere in the world, the author which nominated this article for deletion resembles an anti-romanian editor which continusly disrupts romanian related articles Rezistenta (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we do have the article Gallo-Roman about the latinized Gauls (Celts), why shouldn't we have an article Thraco-Roman about the latinized Thracians? They are scientific works about the Thraco-Roman culture. I don't see a good reason to delete the article. --Olahus (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I2k

I2k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Pure original research and unsourced as well. TN‑X-Man 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, dicdef, reads like a pamphlet or something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced original research, possible G11 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Keep' – I am just not sure yet. First, if the article is a keep, it should be renamed “Information to Knowledge”. Second, though there is not an overwhelming number of hits regarding this particular catch-phrasing there are more than just a few, as shown here [10] and been growing steadily in use since 1994. In addition, there has been growing interest in the technology/scholarly field as shown here [11]. Can the article be Wikified, I believe so. However, it needs someone with more technical expertise in the field than me. ShoesssS Talk 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. While I would normally agree with Shoessss on this, it is spam and per WP:CSD#G11, would need a "fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopaedic". --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Mizu onna sango15 --T-rex 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy if possible. Zero notable sources. Its certainly WP:SPAM. Wonder if there is original research here too. Artene50 (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. JuJube (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • digging through the revision history i found this:

To wikipedia: This note can be deleted after acceptance.I am including this note for copyright concerns. I am 'name redacted', and I represent KnowledgeWorld. In your verification you will find this term referenced at knowledgworld.org. so there it is, this is clearly a bad conflict of interest on top of everything else. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Decdef, COI, OR... and possible more. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Nancy (G10) Attack page. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mullady

Michael Mullady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There does not appear to be any notability. I've googled the actor and have not found anything. IndulgentReader (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apparent autobiography, no references, completely not notable. Borderline speedy A1, as i would consider none of those remarks actuall notions of notability. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely. Subject is clearly not notable. Style of the entry is completely inappropriate. Sean Martin (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete clear BLP problems. Townlake (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merrick Computing Center

Merrick Computing Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable and unsourced. fails WP N and WP V Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some campus buildings may be notable. This doesn't seem to be one of them. I removed a bunch of silliness about birthday parties, a 911 call on a gas leak, and an artist's rendition of a ghost. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Like Eskog said, some campus buildings are notable, but this one is the least bit notable, it receives few hits related to the building itself.[12] SRX--Latino Heat 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability --T-rex 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Youth

Advocates for Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable charity SGGH speak! 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I declined the speedy because their previous name had significant coverage and while their current name is a harder search there is substantial coverage. It needs fleshing out, but it's a national non-profit organization that has significant RS coverage. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Please, please, please nominators do some minimum research before nominating for deletion. Just a quick search gives over 1,400 hits on Google News. That does not include the hits generated by Center for Population Options which gives another 365 hits. Not bad for an organization that was renamed over 17 years ago. As a second point, I noticed that the article was posted as a stub at 13:35 today and tagged for Speedy delete at 13:39, which was denied, retagged aging at 13:56, again denied and finally posted here at Afd at 18:03. My question: are we paying bonus on the number of articles an individual nominates for deletion, I did not hear about? ShoesssS Talk 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Shoessss and Travellingcari. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: non-trivial media coverage is more than enough to assert notability. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and source. — MaggotSyn 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no coverage in reliable sources to verify or establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges to Belarus

Bridges to Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional charity article of a non-notable charity, reads like a leaflet. SGGH speak! 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Endorse nomination unless article is rewritten, referenced and notability established. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only does it read like a leaflet, I strongly suspect that it is a leaflet. THAT SAID, it has quite a few google hits (not that the google popularity contest means much) and I do believe it's notable. Let's either keep and clean up, or perhaps merge into List of Chernobyl-related charities (which is in serious need of help too, by the way). L'Aquatique[talk] 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced so unmergable, and the prior commentator's strong suspicion that is a copyright violation is a reason to delete. GRBerry 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fab apparels

Fab apparels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of why this is notable. Only in business for five months. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to discuss the matter on the relevant talkpages. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overworld

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

Has been deleted previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overworld. There seems to be significant conceptual problems with the subject and it doesn't appear to be notable - most of the information in the article is unverifiable, the few bits that are are just illustrative examples. It doesn't appear to be possible to address the subject directly - if you look at the article it basically tries to describe the subject using various examples, the problem being that while some sources may make some mention of an 'overworld' there is no work that focuses on the concept itself. EvilRedEye (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly widely used, it's not clearly notable. No-one has written about the concept of the overworld in videogames as far as I can tell. The problem is that 'overworld' is really just a term, rather than a concept. And obviously Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, etc. EvilRedEye (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that. For example, Music, Sound and Multimedia: From the Live to the Virtual Jamie Sexton (Edinburgh University Press- 2008) discusses how there were two distinct states for video game music in the early days: a "underworld" and "overworld" themes, which stressed "happy" and "dangerous" feelings, which has been supplanted as games have grown more complex (5X). How to Make Money Organizing Information by Anne Hart talks about player choices being designed for overworld experiences. Character Design for Mobile Devices (Focal Press -2006) talks about modern overworlds in the limitations of cell phone games. That was all from a google books search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie Sexton doesn't discuss videogame overworlds, he uses the term in passing in a discussion about music. Anne Hart seems to be using the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word and again only touches on the concept in passing. The Focal Press book can't be previewed and again only mentions overworld maps once in passing from what I can glean by searching the book for 'overworld'. EvilRedEye (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the above were "we can use this to make an entire article", I'm just saying that there are references out there. To truly see if there was nothing or not you would have to look for video game history or design books, which will obviously not lend themselves to searching for a term. As I have said, I am fine with deletion now, but I am certain someone with some initiative can bring it up to spec in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a fairly significant concept in terms of video game design, at least from the 1980s; the problem is just how widely the word "overworld" is used to describe it. Zelda is probably the only game I closely associate the term with; perhaps Rename to World map (video games)? Haikupoet (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it might be a significant concept, it might be a frequently used term, but it appears that people just haven't written about it. It doesn't really help that the term 'overworld' can be used to describe what can be a fairly disparate set of concepts. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a rather overly legalistic concept of notability. While I'm still on the fence about the value of keeping this article, something widely spoken of is notable by definition. It's like truth -- is something true because it passes a certain battery of truth tests, or is it true because it actually happened? Haikupoet (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably do, although I'd say you're being overly heuristic. The point is, regardless of whether something is widely spoken of, if there aren't any sources then you can't write about something without it being original research. There hasn't been one source brought to the table that addresses the subject directly. If there aren't any such sources then how can an article of any standard be written on the subject? As for your rhetorical point about truth, I guess Wikipedia would go for the first option, what with Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH, etc. EvilRedEye (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe merge to Level (computer and video games). I share the reservations expressed above, that while this is a known concept, it's not necessarily something that can be written about beyond a dicdef without descending into gamecruft. It can probably be mentioned somewhere on WP but probably can't hold an article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This actually is prolly the best way to preserve the link, just make a paragraph or so in the above article for overworlds, that much we could probably reference in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Level (computer and video games) - it's a likely search term, so a redirect is suitable here to the relevant mergepoint in the article on Level. I agree that it is a known concept, just incredibly difficult to source. Having said that, I'm not going to advocate WP:IAR here. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found thisa n informative article, and everyone above seems to think its notable. there's no such thing asgamecruft--unless it means "more details about a game than I think appropriate" I thinkthis well out of that territory.DGG (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: This is a notable topic by many names. Admittedly the article isn't the best written, but that's a reason to fix it rather than delete it. I'd support a merge if someone offered an appropriate place to put it. Putting the overworld under an article on "levels" is kind of misleading, since levels are usually discrete and linear. But surely the person who designs the overworld is a level designer. I have mixed feelings about a merge. Randomran (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think the over/underworld concept is different than that of linear concept of levels. Hence, it should warrant its own article. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure luck (game)

Pure luck (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable card game. Even the creator admits there are "few" who play it, and google comes up with no links or information. Ironholds 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable card game. Tan | 39 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No references. As luck would have it, yes pun intended, could find no information on the game. Looks like this article is out of luck. Yes folks I have a million of them, this is your lucky day :-). ShoesssS Talk 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is non-notable, and no references seem to be available to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references or sources. However, if reliable sources can be provided (although I do not believe this will be possible) I may change my vote to Keep. gm_matthew (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big in Japan Softball Club

Big in Japan Softball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Unreferenced aticle about non-notable amateur softball team. Thetrick (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we're working on it. - BIJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.172.29 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable team of congressional staffers. and also delete Congressional Softball League. Lots of people play in these sorts of work leagues... none of them are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – agree on deleting Congressional Softball League. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'll file a separate AfD as the CSL article has a much longer history. --Thetrick (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AniTuner

AniTuner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software does not appear to have received any independent, reliable, substantial coverage; suggest deletion on grounds of WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neato-torpedo, but also entirely NN. --Thetrick (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It has received independent – in-depth coverage - from reliable sources, as shown here [13]. However, with only two reviews, and one not that complementary, I say delete. ShoesssS Talk 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Hasn't even receieved that; the first is a "description by the publisher", the second only shows user-written comments! Marasmusine (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Probably cruft, but sometimes cruft is in the eye of the beholder. Both sides make some good arguments and some not-so-good arguments, but a clear "delete" consensus does not yet exist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Homer Simpson's jobs

AfDs for this article:
List of Homer Simpson's jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am renominating this, because the previous AFD was filled with WP:ILIKEIT arguments. This list completely focused on in-universe stuff and doesn't contain any out of universe stuff, which is reguired for an article about a fictional topic. On top of that this list lacks references. All in all I think it is time to move this article to the Simpsons Wiki, where it belongs. --Maitch (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The list has sufficient references to demonstrate that the topic is notable in our universe and so the basis of the nomination is bogus. It seems to be a disruptive renomination based only upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the references. They are not as informational as you imply, and don't imply any out of universe notability of this topic stating only Homer's main job as a Nuclear Technician. --T-rex 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read the previous Afd, and sorry to say, I did not see one I LIKE IT comment. In fact all the keeps, other than two that said per above, were well thought out – logical and to the point. Likewise, as it was during the previous Afd the article is referenced – been continually updated since 2005, when the article first appeared, and has survived two previous Afds nominations overwhelming. Please read Before Nominating for Afd, I provided the link for you here [14], before nominating another article. ShoesssS Talk 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Colonel Warden, "I think the nom is bogus" is not Speedy Keep criteria. JuJube (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has already passed two AfD's. The list of jobs is significant to both the show, and to Homer Simpson himself. The article passes WP:FICT as it is covered in reliable secondary sources (albeit only two). I would suggest adding more sources if theyre out there. Ben1283 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just curious as to how the references are sufficient. One confirms (in passing) that Homer has had many jobs, the other mentions that he's had more than 2 jobs (in passing) and the third is about Peter Griffin, not Homer Simpson. None of the articles is specifically about his many jobs. -- Scorpion0422 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terribly fancrufty, unlike the couch gag list (a major show element). Homer's job-of-the-day might be important within the context of the story of a particular episode, but the notion that Homer has different jobs isn't important to his character as a whole. --Thetrick (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no out of universe notability. No external sources. The only job listed in either of the references only refers to Homer's job as a Nuclear Technician --T-rex 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious and useless fancruft. Eklipse (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of the past 2 Afd's Both past Afd's keep votes were basically one of the following clearly non-policy reasons for keeping, including socks:

    • It is a usefull list
    • Many people have contributed to it / a lot of effort has gone into it
    • encyclopedic
    • well sourced
    • important
    • valuable
    • "This is just a cartoon show. You people should have better things to do [than delete it]"
    • A "well known list"
    • "List of Homer's jobs is an excellent piece of popular culture"
    • 'per' votes
    • blank votes

However, there were some votes follwing a more reasoned train of thought, which I have combined into the following raison d'etre:

  • Homer changing jobs is a running gag/important aspect/staple of the Simpsons/Homer, which is frequently discussed in Simpsons literature and critical studies, and therefore it is notable enough because Homer is an important part of popular culture. It needs to be a separate list, outside of the Homer Simpson, article for space reasons, Therefore, unless any future keepers have comething more to add, it is clear that this is the statement which must be measure against the deletion policy by any closing admin, who should also consider contributing much more than the single sentence summaries of the last two keep outcomes. I am not voting, as I think its ridiculous that wikipedia is so variable in this respect, where this list gets kept twice, but a list of the Simpsons chalkboard gags gets deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Xoloz in the previous AfD. (if it ends up being !voted for deletion, please move to wikiproject space instead of destroying) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information and Homer's jobs are not as big of a series hallmark as some seem to think. What about a list of Bart's pranks (or prank calls), Barney's belches or times Homer says d'oh? Keeping this list would advocate the creation of those three (and others). From the last afd, a lot of people seemed to think that getting rid of this page would mean that Homer's jobs would have to get undue weight in the Homer Simpson article. While it could have a paragraph (or perhaps even a small section) I don't think it would dominate the article like some believe. Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete guide to fiction. -- Scorpion0422 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources do not provide adequate out of universe notability for something that is not really one of the biggest hallmarks of the show. It's an indiscriminate list, which can be effectively summed up in Homer's article (as Scorpion said) and moved to the Simpsons Wiki to preserve it. Gran2 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On the one hand I don't consider this encyclopedic and it might be a bit sill even. However I also don't consider Wikipedia a real encyclopedia and one of its main values is pop-culture stuff no encyclopedia would do. That and I'm not sure where else this would go while simultaneously thinking people would look for it.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly hard to justify inclusion on guidelines, but guidelines are just that, a guide. The Simpsons are something of a cultural phenomenon and this list is indeed useful, so to me common sense says keep. Also there's some brief mention of Homer's jobs in this USA today articleincluding a few not on this list. RMHED (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain what, exactly, this list is "useful" for? Also, this rather well-known site strikes me as the perfect place for this list - and they accept contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simpsons fans who may not go online much so don't know about The Simpsons Archive. A non-Simpson fan who is dating or befriending a Simpsons fan, but doesn't personally want to go on Simpsons sites. Stuff like that.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who don't know how to use google have probably never heard of wikipedia either --T-rex 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not what I said. I said "may not go online much." Even people who go online maybe once a year have heard of Google and can type "Homer Simpson's jobs" if a friend talks about it.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using that standard Wikipedia would host about half the material on the Internet. --Thetrick (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give it time "g." More seriously this has been the subject of articles. So this isn't like any random assembly of words or phrases a person might stick into a search engine. A search for "homer simpson's jobs" gets 1310 g-hits. A search for "George W. Bush's jobs" gets about 41[15] and for "Washington's jobs" there's 288. So there's more interest in the careers of Homer Simpson than that of the US's first or current President. That might be weird, but unsurprising. I have my doubts, but this kind of thing does seem to fit what people use Wikipedia for even if it'd be absurd in any other reference work. (Note "Blair's jobs" gets almost 600 and "Bush's jobs" gets considerably more than "Simpson's jobs")--T. Anthony (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Combine this article with the article about Homer Simpson.Stoplight18 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking at it, it is a long Detialed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoplight18 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just now I've added references to this article which was published in the Montreal Gazette. (Did others not bother to search for sources?) I think there's enough out-of-universe notability to argue for keep.(Changing to neutral.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just one article though. Most guidelines say at least two. It still doesn't help the fact that it's a big list of indescriminate overdetailing and cruft. -- Scorpion0422 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True enough, and I'll switch my !vote to neutralchanged again—see further down the page.. Forgive me, though, if I sit here grumbling still about how editors in deletion discussions are more quick to !vote "delete per lack of sources" than to actually search for sources. :/ Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the references just added prove, Homer's innumerable jobs do form part of the mainstream media reporting of the Simpsons, and hence there are reliable sources proven notability. This is, as proven in Papa's Got a Brand New Badge, not lost on the writers, either. Bastin 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who is not at all familiar with the show, I'm just curious: if he changes jobs every day, what's the point of merging with his article? Either it should be deleted, or it should be kept, for if he's changing jobs so frequently, it will need to be spun out to its own article in order to avoid making his page like 100KB. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Simpsons is completely different from live action shows in that there is usually no continuity whatsoever so most (as in 99%) of these jobs are limited to one episode. Homer could be fired from his normal job (as safety inspector at the nuclear power plant) in one episode and become an ice cream salesman, but the very next he'll be back to his default job with no explanation at all. Half of these jobs are merely one-episode plots and the other half are a lot less than that. Most of them really wouldn't be worth mentioning at length on the Homer page. If the community decides to delete this article, I'm going to add a small section saying that he frequently has new jobs and go into a little bit more detail, but that is all that is really necessary. Considering that all of the Simpsons character GAs manage to condense 420 episodes into a 4-10 paragraph "role in The Simpsons" section, this is just overkill. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full of fancruft. Martarius (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simpsoncruft. JuJube (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a list of episode premises, one-off jokes, and background notes, all scrambled together by an in-universe instead of out-of-universe organization. This is not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTE, which states that a topic needs substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note the word multiple. This article has four so-called references, three of them (from marginal sources) that make completely trivial mention of Homer's jobs. Only one article has Homer's jobs as a subject, and that only addresses his "top ten best jobs", not a complete list. But even if one accepted this article as a legitimate reference, which is doubtful, one reference is not enough to establish notability. Gatoclass (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for anything, but also per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote from WP:LIST: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies. Now, where are the reliable sources to demonstrate that Homer's jobs are notable? There aren't any. The article has exactly one source that discusses Homer's jobs as a topic, and that itself is nothing more than a trivial humour piece. If a topic isn't notable, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors have mentioned reliable sources in this discussion that should be added to the article. The topic is notable and should be in the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything is cruft, if it is not your area of interest. It meets all the standards for Wikipedia Lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, several of those on the delete side are prominant editors of articles about The Simpsons. -- Scorpion0422 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Combine this article with the article about Homer Simpson. Beve (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, in-universe Simpsonscruft. There has to be a limit of how much fan material we are willing to tolerate within an encyclopedic project. Eusebeus (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Maitch (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kirk Gleason had many dozens of jobs in Gilmore Girls, and it had no more impact than a laugh for one episode each. This list is no different. If the phenomenon of Homer's having so many jobs is notable (I wouldn't be too sure of that, as it never crossed my mind), it can be noted in his article without the hundreds of examples. This list already appears (twice) at the Simpsons wikia,[16][17], so no transwikiing necessary. – sgeureka t•c 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After following this whole discussion, and despite having contributed the most relevant reference to the article, at this point I am convinced by sgeureka's reasoning, and am switching my !vote to delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This Afd is 6 days old, somebody put it out of its misery one way or the other. Despite the fact it was singularly ignored, I stand by my summary and conclusion made above. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure we can accurately say one way or the other; I believe it should be kept, but it really seems a no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crane

Chris Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This subject is not notable per outside coverage and through our Wikipedia:ATHLETE guidelines. College players can be notable, but this player has just, essentially, been a back-up for his entire college career. If he receives significant next year as a starter, then recreation is fine, but right now he's not having any independent coverage that denotes notability. Metros (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a number of games played for a fairly well known team. Also I don't think there is any doubt that he is presently the team's starting QB --T-rex 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Right on the boarder line. However, after reviewing the guidelines with regards to Amateur Athletes as shown here [18] and looking at the coverage Mr. Crane has received, as shown here, [19]. I believe Chris has established sufficient Notability to be included in Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is easily confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much more than tons of college players. The link to his ghits above are misleading. They mostly mention him in passing, in coverage of a game that he has played in. He has not received significant coverage as required by WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Web page hits are certainly one way to measure notability, but are not the only way. By saying that the player has not received significant coverage simply means that one measure of notability has not been achieved. There are other ways to define and achieve notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability for detail, but specifically this is a classic case of the surmountable problem and specialist topic arguments. The college football project encountered this same type of deletion argument several years ago with Tim Tebow when he was not a starter (and Heisman trophy winner), but those who follow college football could see that he would very likely become widely known based on his skill level and position. Likewise, this player is most likely going to be a starter for a notable college football program the next year, and all reports lead to that at this time. As the "surmountable problem" essay states, "Even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." I say keep this article (it's certainly better than a "poor" article) and let the Wiki-world improve it over time. The specialists in college football consider it worthwhile and it can be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battleworld

Battleworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not even a stub, and all information covered in the Secret Wars article. Hence superfluous.

Vote: Delete

Asgardian (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, and/or redirect to Secret Wars - no need for a separate article. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FMF below, or Merge and redirect to Secret Wars. BOZ (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Secret Wars, merge a few sentences and then merge. Faradayplank (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent coverage --T-rex 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This can be sourced adequately from the issues themselves. Ford MF (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing from the issues is not independent coverage. --T-rex 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but could use a rewrite. Notable fictional location of the Marvel U in the 1980s. Merge isn't really a good option, as the planet persisted after Secret Wars in several other comics (which the article should more appropriately reflect, with perhaps a section on Ben Grimm on Battleworld, post-Secret Wars). Ford MF (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, it was a major element of Beyond!, which, aside from having one character in common (the Beyonder), has nothing to do with Secret Wars at all. Ford MF (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any links that show the appearances of this location? I would lean towards merging the relevant bits to the relevant sections (if it appeared in two main storylines it could be mentioned in there and the two articles linked) but if it has made too many appearances it might make sense to keep it separate. (Emperor (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand the rationale of merging the info, not to one article, but all over the place. In [{The Thing]] (roughly 2/3 of his 80s solo series occurred there), Spider-Man (origin of black costume), Beyonder, Beyond!, &c. How would this redundancy serve any of our readers? Ford MF (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm asking this because as it stands there is no way to really assess what we should do with the article - it doesn't even have. It is worth bearing in mind that just because a fictional location gets mentioned in a number of comics it doesn't necessarily mean it needs its own section. The origin and main characteristics could be described in a section of Secret Wars and the others could link to that for the background and then include the specific pieces of plot in their own entry. As it stands I'd probably have to vote to merge it to Secret Wars and if more sources emerge we could look into splitting it off but at the moment it is even failing WP:V, withot even considering WP:FICT. (Emperor (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
            • Regardless of the arguments at WP:FICT (which, incidentally, entirely lacks consensus), sourcing comics information to the issues in which it appears completely satisfies WP:V's proviso that "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." Ford MF (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The problem is it isn't sourced to anything - there are no footnotes saying which issues of what is being referred to there, so as it stands it is failing WP:V. However, even sourcing it to primary sources doesn't satisfy notability. You might want to keep it, I might like to keep it but in its current state I have no ammunition for arguing for even a weak keep beyond WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't good enough. As it stands I'd have to lean on this being merged into Secret Wars and see if it gets enough sources to warrant being split off again. (Emperor (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Have you READ Beyond? It might as well be titled Secret Wars 2. All of the stories you mentioned happened during Secret Wars, immediately after Secret Wars, or reference Secret Wars heavily. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per FMF. Battleworld persists outside of Secret Wars, & should definately be edited to reflect that. --mordicai. (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Secret Wars. People are saying, "This is related to [foo] and related to [bar]" and that's nice, but is this article (or a proper article under this name, this one sucks) required for understanding of those articles? Absolutely not. Any reference to Battleworld is inherently a reference to Secret Wars. Battleworld was created for Secret Wars, in both an in-universe (the Beyonder created it for his test) and an out-of-universe (the setting was introduced in Secret Wars) sense. The Thing's solo series followed Secret Wars directly. Beyond! is an homage to Secret Wars. Spider-Man got his black costume in...well, I imagine you can guess. There's absolutely nothing to say about Battleworld that doesn't require a summary of Secret Wars to understand, and divorcing this from necessary context while adding nothing at all save plot summary both violates Wikipedia policy and does a disservice to readers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major fictional element in a number of notable fictions. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) which happens to take place in a crossover, and there is no indication that it will ever pass NOT#PLOT. Also, major WP:NOTABILITY concerns for this planet. Fiction articles are the subject of wiki policies and guidelines just like every other article, therefore delete. – sgeureka t•c 08:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warcloud

Warcloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music). I could not find coverage of the artist except his own MySpace page. Farside6 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Since this artist has so many aliases and has been associated with several bands I think an entry clarifying what he did, with which group and when would be helpful but since searching for the actual name of the person results in 10 ghits ghits, whereas a search for Warcloud "Black Knights" "The Wu-Tang Clan" produces about a thousand. Most of those are blogs and other such fan based. --F=aradayplank (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - re-read article and after some time to think about it there isn't enough there to satisfy notability. Just lists. If references were added, I could see a Keep but as is, delete --Faradayplank (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peiman Rezaei

Peiman Rezaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an WP:AUTOBIO including WP:OR and the 'awards' section is a blatant copy of his own website &#0149;xytram&#0149;talkpics 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No information out there other than personal web pages and a few blogs. Sorry, need more than that. ShoesssS Talk 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While winning awards does confer some notability, the article would need more sources to warrant keeping. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability is asserted with the exception of "winning awards". As the awards sedem to be minor the notability seems vanishingly small. No prejudoce to recreation. M♠ssing Ace 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete and then redirect - unsourced material is not mergeable. GRBerry 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Gavin

Eddie Gavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Completely OR. No improvement after article was tagged for more than six months. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High reach influencer

High reach influencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term was "coined in 2008". The article was created by the coiner of the phrase, and the phrase gets 8 Google hits. Entirely non-notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wholly non-notable, and poorly referenced. I don't think there's anything in the article which could be salvaged. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is borderline speedy deletion material, since I strongly suspect that this article is covert spam: an article defining someone's newly minted marketing buzzword. But the article is well written in reasonably clear English, so I'll give it the benefit of due process. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Throw in a little COI, as it seems the original author of the piece is the same person as being credited with coining the phrase, I say delete. ShoesssS Talk 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable WP:OR --T-rex 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete and then redirect. GRBerry 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Gavin

Connor Gavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Completely OR article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. Kudos to Faradayplank, who did the merge.chaser - t 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Files on Frank Sinatra

FBI Files on Frank Sinatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable for its own article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely a redirect? What do you mean it's fine? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - seems made to advertise a book; not sufficient notability on its own. Huon (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Frank Sinatra. This is about two subjects with obvious notability. This isn't an article about some fan club and how they looked after the object of their affection but a major government agency. That said, the article lacks references and is written like a teaser to go out and buy the book.--Faradayplank (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Merge/Redirect Take a look at this search, on the first page you have the FBI archives, NPR, MSNBC & Washington Post. Maybe later I'll add the references and clean it up when I have some more time --Faradayplank (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frank Sinatra#Controversy. I added refs and merged the article into the main, cut out some duplicate info. It works well there. --Faradayplank (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect – This would fit nicely in the controversy section of the Frank Sinatra piece. If it becomes to long over time, we can always break-it-out then. ShoesssS Talk 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect This belongs in the Sinatra article, not as a standalone piece. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, per author nominating his own articles? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North America Challenge

North America Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable events, the article was created from information I removed from the article Laser Quest. After some contemplation and looking at what I could find the event doesnt appear(google news search) to warrant separate detailed article. Gnangarra 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

North America Challenge 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North America Challenge 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have also placed a notice at Talk:Laser Quest#AFD notice as the content was originally removed from Laser Quest Gnangarra 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy DeleteMerge as the nom is also the author. Put any relevant information that the Laser Quest requires back and lose the rest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the speedy criteria can be applied, as an admin I could just delete the articles. I cant claim it as being information I authored or sole editor of the article, its info I had just removed from the article, and think that editors who have acted in good faith in adding the info to Laser Quest should have the opportunity to respond. Gnangarra 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you put the information back in Laser Quest then? Surely, this is about deleting the article you created, otherwise isn't it just a case of merging back into the original article and discussing on the Laser Quest talkpage? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article I created is only one of the nominated articles. Gnangarra 14:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood then. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If verifiability is a problem, this may help. --CptNimrod (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that verifies but its a primary source, as such it doesnt assert notability which requires significant coverage in independent sources. Gnangarra 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that she is notable enough but will probably be renominated if more sources are not found in the future. Davewild (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenka Kotková

Lenka Kotková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no sources, even trivial ones, provided. —Zorro CX 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) + 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Are you sure? The article looks good to me. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - the article is sourced, and notability is evident (she's discovered over 200 celestial bodies). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where do you see any source please? That article is marked for almost one year for its lack. —Zorro CX 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources would be in the section marked References! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any notability in discovering stones. (Asteroids are defined as stones with diameters more than 10 metres.) There is more than 1,000,000 asteroids. Is discovering 200 of them notable? —Zorro CX 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that an asteroid was named for her in 1997 (link) should be an indication that she's probably notable. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be notable to me. I don't think we have a specific policy for astronomer notability but I'd say discovering 200 asteroids qualifies. Some more sources would help her verifiability though. ~ mazca talk 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. There are sources that have been cited. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? There is only one which reads as a fancruft: "Named in honor of Lenka Sarounová (b. 1973), an assiduous observer at the Ondrejov Observatory. She has a broad range of interests, from astronomy and meteorology to music. She loves gaining new experiences through traveling and meeting people. Her photometric and astrometric observations of minor planets became an integral part of the discoverers' research project on NEOs." It can be added her eyes colour and her favourite puppie name. And other facts (except her hobbies) are not sourced. —Zorro CX 20:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gsearch and google scholar search shows notability (more hits under her maiden name); she received an award for her work on variable stars.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot more publications under her maiden name, but most of these are in a bulletin on variable stars, which certainly isn't a prominent journal, and she is usually not the primary author. This still doesn't clearly establish notability to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no secondary sources that discuss her as a subject. She has not written any books, has not been appointed to any important positions and the award mentioned is of unclear importance. I cannot tell from reading this article if her work is any more or less important than that of other astronomers. I will reconsider this assessment if sources that establish notability are added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – That is the problem with academics – there is just not that much information out there on them. However, I was able to establish some Notability for Ms. Kotková by going to Google Scholar. As we can see here [21], Ms. Kotková has been involved with at least three scholarly works. With at least one of her publications being cited by this source [22] which was in turn cited by 12 additional sources which included some of the highest regarded and respected Astrophysical journals. I say that is enough to establish Notability within her field. ShoesssS Talk 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Publishing is what academics do. If she really has only 3 publications, that were cited only once, then she is not notable at all. (The fact that that one citing article itself was cited 12 times is irrelevant, but even if we count all those, 13 citations is something a good grad student might have halfway through their PhD). I am not too familiar with this field: GoogleScholar may be less appropriate for it. I would be surprised, in fact, if she got a position at an observatory with only 3 publications to her name. I think we need some input from someone who knows this field better. --Crusio (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you applied the same publication criteria to me I'd be notable (see my userpage). But I'm certainly not that important! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Tim, when you are ready for your bio to be added here at Wikipedia, let me know. Will be happy to co-author the piece :-). 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll get back to you after my first Nature paper. Unfortunately my dad is still ahead of me by that criteria - PMID 4938851 Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vickers. It's unfortunate that every little hockey player that played two minutes in the NHL gets himself a whole Wikipedia article and this person has to go through an afd, but I guess there's no choice in the matter. There's no clear-cut line that can be drawn for academics, and we must analyze each academic on a case by case basis. Vickers has clearly established that there's no evidence that she's an important figure of her area of study thus not meeting the WP:PROF notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending source verification. For whatever it's worth, astronomy is a particularly squishy subject when it comes to notability because there are so many amateurs in the field with significant amounts of publication on the record. If the sources are verifiable, a soupçon of WP:IAR is called for. Haikupoet (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources do you mean? There are none. —Zorro CX 07:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep apparently she is essentially a technical worker, not a scientist, but as having had such a role in so many asteroid discoveries, she is notable. DGG (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still sceptical about this. How many asteroids might an average astronomer working on asteroids discover? I don't have any experience of this field, so I can't judge whether this number is small, large, or average. This problem would be solved by a secondary source that discusses Lenka Kotková as somebody who has discovered an exceptional number of asteroids. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment As I mentioned above, the fact that an asteroid was named for her (link) should be an indication that she's probably notable.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHowever, needs more sources, and an image of her.Remilo (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fantasy Ride. Hut 8.5 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Fall

Tears Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect of non-notable single, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this is a vanity page and fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ferguson

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

An article about an individual who is famous because he has met some famous people. Unencyclopedic content. Speedy tag had previously been removed. sparkl!sm hey! 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No references, questionable image rationales. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - images on this page should probably be checked to see if they are truly non-copyrighted --T-rex 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I rm some pov in the article and re-read it. Delete per WP:SOAP. I don't get the sense he's notable but he sure as hell wants to be! Faradayplank (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Could find no information out about this particular Rob Ferguson. And to be honest, I am not even sure about his claim on managing Matt Goss. If that is an actual fact, I’m quite sure I wouldn’t bring it up in that it is quoted, in the Matt Goss piece “…the incompetent management they had’ was part of the cause for their downfall. Either way, delete. ShoesssS Talk 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to Delete: I haven't researched it, but from my first sight of this article, it had the aura of a vanity page. I landed there by chasing mis-spellings of Townshend. Before I even corrected that, I put the cleanup tag on it. Hu (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like Wikipedia is being used for promotion. The article's creator has worked almost exclusively on two articles, the other one being Transcend Media Group. Hu (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I believe this person is notable (I'm fairly certain he's mentioned in at least two books I have) I will try and gather references and improve the article and/or recreate a better version if this delete passes. ChaoticReality 12:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young & Restless (Young Dro album)

AfDs for this article:
Young & Restless (Young Dro album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Haterz Everywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) same reasons, single on album Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickerson Family Association

Nickerson Family Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; non-notable family organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 12:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish Keep - This isn't some fly-by-night geneology club; it was founded over 100 years ago. Sure, many (most) of the hits are announcements of reunions or obituaries, but there are also real news items, such as [23] , [24], and this one, which asserts it is "one of the largest genealogical associations in the world." The article needs cleanup, and it's not clear to me that it will ever be more than a few paragraphs, but I think the subject can be established as notable.  Frank  |  talk  13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Needs refs. from other sites to be considered for a Wikipeida article. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 13:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both the statements above. In fact, I've wanted to expand this article, but that would take things into COI territory, as I stated on the NFA's talk page. Nickersonl (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know of neutral, verifiable sources, by all means please add them. COI is not the only factor to keep in mind; it is certainly possible to contribute to an article even if you're a member of the organization. It wouldn't be a good idea to be the ONLY contributor, and if it were your own personal biography that would be different, but if the organization is notable and you can provide links to show that, go for it!  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag as and see what develops. Gdavid3 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Books

Beautiful Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A publishing house would seem to just about miss WP:CSD#A7 despite the fact that the article has no real assertion as to why they're a notable publishing house. Declined speedy so brought here for wider discussion. Pedro :  Chat  12:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not properly cited, should fall into a WikiProject, which it doesn't. Not notable. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources, no indication of passing WP:CORP. Huon (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable... just a commercial for a book publisher. Teapotgeorge (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or tag as unsourced. Gdavid3 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calella. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer

Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Also, I suspect a possible hoax. Only 49 Googles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article most definitely not a hoax.Marenach (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article important within confines of its class 72.221.92.43 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No English references. Article on Catalan wikipedia exists but only has same reference. --Thetrick (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Calella. At least for now, then in the Calella article we can see if it's sourced.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The original concern wp:n hasn't been addressed. The one comment that it isn't a Hoax (which I have no comment on) gave no evidence as such. The keep above claims "important within confines of its class " but doesn't state why. And as for redirect, if notability cannot be established, why redirect? The article needs some sources, which should be enough to address notability Faradayplank (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that as he's in the article Calella anyway. If the workers on that article determine he's a hoax or non-notable he can be removed from that article and then the redirect can be deleted.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fine suggestion ... Redirect to Calella. Faradayplank (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abika test

Abika test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom - This was a speedy candidate, but I feel that AFD is the proper forum as it may be notable. I have no opinion either way. Keilana|Parlez ici 12:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an ad service or PR Firm -- 76.109.168.102 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Feels more like a cheap ad than a Wikipedia article. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very thinly disguised advertorial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reinvention of the "Spam Wheel" --76.109.174.153 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too many violations to list Devlin McGregor (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Free commercial? The site produces racist and anti-semitic material, but poses as a background seach site... Here are two great reasons for a speedy delete [25] [26] & DrunkenDialer (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Young Knives. Kevin (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Dartnall

Henry Dartnall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band", which Henry Dartnall has not. Recommend blanking and redirecting to the Young Knives page. Ironholds 12:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it doesn't. Band members must have done work outside that particular band; what is he involved in? Ironholds 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Evil

The Voice of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fan produced audio episode of Dr. Who does not assert notability. Deadly∀ssassin 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica in the media

Metallica in the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable fancruft. This is just trivia. On another note, most popular bands have left their mark in the media but this does not justify a page. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, delete.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main page has extensive section on significance of Metallica; no need to document every mention of the band. --Thetrick (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created contrary to WP:TRIVIA, no apparent effort to make it anything other than an OR trivia dump, no sources relevant to the subject (although they might well exist). WillOakland (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (deleted by Stormie) Kevin (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' characters

The Beatles' characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know it's the Beatles, but this is not notable - and all these characters can be discussed in the individual articles. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, looking at this, this page should be deleted and locked. The guy has had the page deleted before. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY G4: Recreation of deleted material. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not eligible for speedy (G4) as it has not had a previous AfD discussion. The article should be removed, but I'd like to see some of the information sourced and put in the various articles. BradV 12:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is, or convert to prose. I don't think the argument that it is not notable is valid. It is as notable as, or more notable than List of Kill Bill characters or other similar pages. Another argument, that there are no sources, is true, but I think it should be kept for the same reason we keep plot summaries in film articles (the film itself is the source). Perhaps this could be placed as prose into The Beatles, but that article is already quite lengthy. Ward3001 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters in films are different to characters referenced perhaps one or twice in a song. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? What makes film characters more notable than characters in a song, especially when more people have heard the song than have seen the film? Ward3001 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Every character and every song can easily be sourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is an encyclopedic article. Several characters have entered pop culture... Particularly notable is the list of real people included in the songs, near the end of the article... Frog47 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These can (and probably should) be listed on the individual song articles — an article like this is not necessary. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. A character mentioned or reference in a song is much different that a character in a book or film (and even those characters should have established notability, sources, and out-of-universe information). Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? What makes film characters more notable than characters in a song, especially when more people have heard the song than have seen the film? Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think you can make any valid comparison between a character in a film and a character in a song. I mean, for one thing, a film character actually appears on screen, has conversations, a backstory, personality, etc., and besides the in-universe information there's the origin of the character, perhaps casting or production information, development of character, etc. This really wouldn't be possible for a character in a song. Also, the reason for having lists of characters is because characters are vital to the plot of a film. I don't really see the point of this list at all. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the character Eleanor Rigby is vital to the song Eleanor Rigby, as are hundreds of other characters in The Beatles' music. And I think it's fair to say that, within the time restrictions of a song (about two to four minutes), most of The Beatles' characters are developed (i.e., personality, backstory, etc.) about as much as a film character could be developed in two to four minutes. Ward3001 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but films last longer than two to four minutes, and a character in a film who is that minor would normally not be included in a list of characters. There really is no convincing comparison. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed my point (perhaps from my inadequate explanation). My point is that, for The Beatles' music, their characters are very notable, as are many characters in a film. And within the paraemeters of a song (rather than a film) they are well-developed. If we were talking about a character from a song by a one-hit group, it might not be noteworthy. But we are talking about characters that have had tremendous cultural influence, as much or more than most film characters. Ward3001 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But without context, what purpose does this list serve? A list of film characters has some purpose (arguably not very much, and I don't like them myself) because they contain information, as I said above, about backstory, personality, origin, casting, development, etc. This list doesn't even make an attempt at any prose. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just can't see how the subject matter is remotely notable for an encyclopedia. --Bardin (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? What makes the subject matter not "remotely notable"? Ward3001 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the subject matter "remotely notable"? Has there been any significant coverage of this subject matter in reliable sources that are independent of the band per WP:N? Bardin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters in The Beatles's songs are as notable as characters in films which have Wikipedia articles, such as List of Kill Bill characters and others. Have The Beatles' characters had "significant coverage ... in reliable sources that are independent of the band"? Without a doubt, yes. These characters have had a tremendous impact on popular culture. This is The Beatles we are talking about, not one-hit groups. And if citations are needed, then the article needs a refimprove template, not deletion, just as many other articles (including articles listing film characters) need sources but are not deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without a doubt"? In that case, sources should be easy to find. Unless, of course, you just find sources that discuss the songs rather than the characters featured in the songs ... which I think is much more likely to be the case. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be sources that discuss the characters (the songs are 40 years old and more than a little popular), but they can't be added if the article is deleted. Let's try to keep things in perspective. If this article is deleted, then we need to take a good look at 30, 40, possibly many more lists of characters from major motion pictures that should be deleted for the same reason. Sources cannot be added overnight. Most Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Add refimprove, but don't delete. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of things. This list only mentions characters in the Beatle's songs that are referenced by name. But surely, 'characters' exist even without actual mention of names. What about the (presumably) the woman who is described as the day tripper? Why isn't she mentioned. This is a bit arbritrary. Also, the argument that film character pages need to go smacks of two wrongs. And another thing, characters in films are more notable. The Dude anyone? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two wrongs, I agree, so why not zero wrongs. I'm not arguing to delete the lists of film characters. Let's keep them as well as The Beatles' characters. And I strongly disagree that film characters are more notable. See my comments elewhere on this page. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ward, you might want to read this. Just because another list exists, it isn't an argument for why this should. indopug (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I had already read it, but the existence of other lists is not the crux of my argument (perhaps not stated very clearly). My point for editors who favor keeping the lists of film characters (as I do) is that The Beatles' characters are as notable as characters in other lists. Obviously if editors don't favor keeping either list, that argument has no bearing. But I think the same standard should be applied to both types of lists. Ward3001 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Beatles' characters are as notable as characters in other lists". No notably has been established for the characters in this list. Why should there be an article listing them? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're an editor who believes that no list of characters (film, music, or otherwise) is worthy of an article and that all such lists should be deleted, fine; I disagree but respect your opinion. If not, please tell us how how any list of characters in notable, how The Beatles' characters are less notable, and give us links to pages with lists of notable characters. Ward3001 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I, you, or anyone else think of other character lists is irrelevant to the discussion. Why is this list worth keeping? What makes it a notable topic in its own right? That is not currently established, and without establishing notability for this topic then there is no reason to keep the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best information on this characters would go into the articles about the songs that mention them. There's no reason for a list to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article was titled List of Characters in Beatles' Songs, it would be fine as it is made up of a good many wiki-notable people. Just as "List of Desperate Housewives characters" or "List of Beatles' songs" are acceptable articles, so is this one. Gdavid3 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Moving article to List of Characters in Beatles' songs Gdavid3 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Also, I believe it might be OR to label names mentioned in a song as "characters". indopug (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. it is a stretch to call some of these "characters". The Beatles' songs are notable, the random names that they use in them are not --T-rex 01:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liontooth

Liontooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability, no independent sources. Fails WP:BK. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not assert notability, and has no independent references. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. commercial promotion of an non notable book. Teapotgeorge (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BK GtstrickyTalk or C 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to this book's product description on Amazon, it was reviewed by Country Living, The Lady and The English Garden. I haven't been able to track down full online copies of these reviews and so I can't be sure whether they are non-trivial (i.e. do they extend beyond the excerpts given?); but if they are then this would pass WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondhu Bhabo Ki ?

Bondhu Bhabo Ki ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. SGGH speak! 09:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC - Unsourced article on Album by artist whose notability has not yet been established. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, non-notable. Huon (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; article lacks sources and does not assert notability. I would have thought this could have been speedied. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albums can't be speedied unfortunately.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good enough reason for it not to be speedied than, I guess! LOL! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rules, rules, bloody rules..........  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I read that as "Roots Bloody Roots"! Rules are good. They keep us honest. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yepii Party

Yepii Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yepii Decalogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

I checked its online 'reference' and its just a blog site. It looks like a fringe party when its blog site I which checked says: "College loan officers are terrorists. Those who practice job discrimination are terrorists. Construction workers who wolf whistle at women are terrorists." Not exactly very inviting. Performed a google check and came across this small result here It is likely WP:FRINGE and lacks WP:N. The fact that the author of the article has the name yepii also hints at WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete apparent conflict of interest. Article which fails to assert notability and without reliable sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and so tagged. Hoax. Party doesn't exist outside of blog, article created on April 1st, and "Yepii Decalogue" mentioned in article was G3 speedied yesterday after being at Afd. I was going to speedy, but in writing the explanation it occurred to me that if I had to write this much, it probably isn't blantant enough for speedy. I just added a hoax tag for the time being, though I have no problem if someone decides it's time for this to go.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Forgot to mention ALL of the results from the Google search mentioned by the nom are from WP, add "-wikipedia" to the search and you get 3 mentions, all three of which are themselves wikis. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think everyone else has summed up why. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Whilst I do not believe it would be reasonable here to deny the possiblity of the subject matter Black Twig Communications being notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, it is apparent that notability has not been established through the inclusion of reliable and independent sources. I'd like to encourage the on-going attempts at providing evidence of notablity here, and I would be glad to see them continue, but at the same time, it is simply not prudent that we maintain an article entry for a non-notable subject.

The result of this debate is, at this time, to Delete. Anthøny 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Twig Communications

Black Twig Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company SGGH speak! 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepIs there a way to cite more sources to keep this page from being deleted? The current page cites 2 St. Louis Post Dispatch articles, a St. Louis Business Journal article and a St. Louis Small Business Monthly article. In addition, because Black Twig is St. Louis' largest privately-held PR firm, I feel that adds the credibility needed to have a page. Fleishman-Hillard, the other St. Louis-based PR firm that is publicly traded has a page and I used that page as a model of an acceptable Wikipedia entry.
  • One of Black Twig's clients is NutraSweet and there are a couple of articles in AdWeek and other publications about how Black Twig is instrumental in rebranding the packets. Would this help add to the credibility? I would like to try to improve the quality of this page as soon as possible. I feel that Black Twig deserves a page and I am trying to better learn how to meet the quality requirements. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Mfullenkamp (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fleishman-Hillard article you mentioned has been tagged with POV for months as it contains a lot of bias. This is not an article to use as a good reference. Think about it, all the articles in category: Public relations companies , are likely going to be biased if the companies have anything to say about it. And they are going to be the very best at disguising POV as neutral. To improve the article see wp:NPOV and WP:N for some more info. Faradayplank (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep opinions were provisional on sources being added. Article is still unsourced. Pigman☿ 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Productions

Black Rose Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this really notable? They organize musical cues on The Cosby Show... SGGH speak! 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep provided sources are added - the article claims that an artist associated with company has had a number one record, but does not provide any sources. If sources can be found to back up this claim I'd be happy to see it remain. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any sources for this article. BradV 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... if sources are added. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references are provided. Sounds like corporate literature or advertising.--Jessika Folkerts (talk)


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

The result was Keep the changes and sources have persuaded a consensus that the article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension Jump (UK Convention)

Dimension Jump (UK Convention) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is wholly unsourced and does not assert its notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - compared to other sci-fi convention articles, this one is currently below standard....however, it has been running for a long time, and is related to a notable science-fiction show - with a little work, it could be improved to the standard of the other articles. I guess my concerns are with notability, but they'd apply to the other convention articles as well, all of which seem fairly basic - unless there's some decent press coverage or major drama, how does one assert notability for any convention ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is waiting for someone with access to the history of the convention to improve it. Jmath666 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - it's been waiting for sixteen months! I think that if someone was going to improve it they would have done by now. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded the article a bit, updated the next event date, completed the list of previous events as far back as the official website has posted records, and added a few independent secondary sources as well as links to the appropriate primary sources on the official website. The article requires further expansion and a bit more referencing but I believe it clears notability given the coverage, the official nature, and the longetivity of the event. - Dravecky (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When it was tagged for AfD, I would have agreed that it should be deleted, but Dravecky has vastly improved the article - well done. The article is now more detailed and referenced with reliable sources, which prove its notability. - Nreive (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Bva MC

Bva MC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician, used myspace as a reference for notability, none of his associates are notable enough for articles, those that are bluelinked refer to articles that only continentally have the same article name, "a track in the pipeline" fails WP:CRYSTAL. No information on the reception or success of this one 2003 "album" SGGH speak! 09:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McMillan

Paul McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability tagged since last December. Young physicist with a recent doctorate and a temporary research position; can hardly be said to pass the Professor Test for notability. Looks cool in those sunglasses, though. P L E A T H E R talk 07:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, no independent sources except a preprint server. Huon (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and is therefore non-notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable scientist. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Four papers, not yet actually published -- and, not surprisingly, uncited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Postdoc with four papers... Let him come back in 15 years. BTW article was created by an User:Teraspawn, according to the user page this is Beth McMillan, so perhaps she's his sister. This has been her major contribution and she hasn't edited since last year December. --Crusio (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and Crusio. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If the article is rewritten, it would be keep worthy, however in it's current state it is not keep worthy.Remilo (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The state of an article's writing is not a reason to argue either for or against deletion. Please base your arguments on the WP deletion policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series

AfDs for this article:
Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Long list of enemies, fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. No assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to satisfy WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I said in the last AfD, this is just a gameguide (WP:NOT#GUIDE) that doesn't further the understanding of the series or the individual games (WP:GAMECRUFT). Most of the enemies aren't notable within the game, so forget real-world notability. Any relevant info can fit into two paragraphs in the franchise article or the gameplay sections of individual games. – sgeureka t•c 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I love the Zelda series, this article is crap. And it is MASSIVE, yet only has FOUR sources....Knowitall (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as repository for worthwhile information on notable game. The reason this article exists is essentially because of all the other enemy articles that were merged with it as the "proper" place for this information. Ford MF (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It had a chance to improve and it didn't. It's only gonna become a problem once again. I stated my main reasons on the talk page of the article in question. --.:Alex:. 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "It had its chance" is not a rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The entire article is supported by four refs, pure cruft. Some sections are simply just a main tag.Gears Of War 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAMECRUFTOroso (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful, nor is it policy. Your vote is nothing more than WP:CRUFTCRUFT SashaNein (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a guideline. Despite your opinion about the word "cruft", the guideline itself indicates this article is inappropriate for wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately no effort was made to clean up this article and make it more encyclopedic. Some of this was my fault. It consists almost entirely of in-universe information and almost no referencing. Changed to Keep, per my creation of this. If you have time, please help improve and expand it. Artichoker[talk] 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Fails to meet the general notability guideline because there are no reliable sources independent of Zelda/Nintendo that cover this list of enemies. Also fails to meet the specific guidelines under WP:GAMECRUFT #5 and #6. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yet again it is necessary to note that lists such as this one are considered adequately sourced if the parent topic is sourced, thus, the article does meet WP:N. McJeff (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. None of these enemies are notable outside the games themselves. The Prince (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral. Seeing as the article/list has improved greatly, with real-world content added, I strike my oppose. However, I still don't see the necessity of the article. The Prince (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, and [27]. Plenty of effort to improve this valid search term that readers come here for. Meets What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Honestly, I don't know what to do with this article. We tried trimming it down to the "traditional enemies", and those that were important to the plot, and that came up with an AFD, and doing it comprehensively also brings up an AFD. I'm going to do a few searches for reviews, etc., see what I can find, and put them on the article talk page - however, I am completely certain that they exist, they just need to be added to the article. Plenty of them, such as the Dodongo's (though admittedly, that's from that crazy Old Man) or Keese, have become "icons". A lot of sourcing could also be done by using the in-game or official site bio's, to lessen the "OR" factor. Pre-release Nintendo Power's or gaming mag's would also be very useful, as we could use them for design information. I will try to look through my few copies, and see what I can find.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, partly per Le Grande Roi's arguments as per the articles validity of WP:LIST, and per the rationalization that WP:ITSCRUFT should never be a valid deletion argument. I will also make the following points in favor of keep.
    • Citing article quality is also not a valid reason for deletion. This is why cleanup exists in the first place.
    • While the article does have "excessive detail in a specific area of interest", which does technically meet the definition of cruft, the cruft can be deleted without the article itself being deleted.
    • The size/source ratio can again be remedied by reducing the list to only the most notable enemies in the series. Say, the ones from the original LoZ, as well as those that have become series staples, such as chuuchuus.
    • "No one's working on it" has also been discounted as a valid argument for deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP.
  • There is already a rescue tag on the article, and I strongly recommend that the people pushing for deletion give the article a chance to be cleaned up. I personally removed a huge amount of stuff from the page (24K bytes worth to be exact), and given 3 or 4 days, I could probably reduce the article to one third its current size without removing one more monster from the list. McJeff (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LIST is a style guideline - nothing in it speaks to the validity of an article in relation to a deletion discussion, and it focuses entirely on how to make a list. Attacking the word "cruft" is a red herring, as WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline, and you're missing the point entirely. And in the end, even having the "most notable" monsters in the list is irrelevant so long as there is no critical coverage. Save this, which is more appropriate for the reception section at The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, as the context of the coverage is entirely on The Minish Cap rather than the series as a whole, no other sources constitute critical coverage or are valid (online sources that require you to pay for a submission in order to access them aren't valid, as other people have to be able to verify the information from the source). And regardless of the question of notability, the article is in clear violation of what is pointed out at WP:GAMECRUFT, and thus the consensus view pointed out by the Video game WikiProject. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, WP:GAMECRUFT seems to support the existence of this article. In particular, concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. McJeff (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the context of a notable article - it refers to a plot summary in the article about the game or a specific character, not an entire article with nothing but plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that your interpretation of NOT#PLOT is incorrect. Again, it says, a concise plot summary is appropriate. This article is (or should be) a concise summary of an aspect of the plot of the games, spun out to reduce article size. Spun-out articles can in fact inherit notability from the parent topic, per what is said at WP:INHERITED Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums. McJeff (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A concise plot summary, again, in the context of a notable article. It does not give you a blank check to make a non-notable article. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which stresses that the spinout articles must prove their own individual notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that one section would be primarily on TMC - no critical source is just going to make sweeping generalizations without specific sources. If we can save the article , that source is meant to be used as a "retrospective" type section, which would cover how they've been recieved over the lifetime of the series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • [28] mentions Dodongo, but I can't access it.
    • Well wouldn't you simply need to register? Never mind, apparently you need to pay $2.95 in order to do so. Artichoker[talk] 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also a pay-per-view site, but mentions enemies.Can we use ppv sources?
  • Subscription sources that require a free trial: [29], [30], [31].
From N-sider The Minish Cap looks to use an upgraded version of the GBA Four Swords engine. The games look nigh identical, from both a technical and artistic standpoint, though The Minish Cap is sporting a lot of extra detail in certain departments. The backgrounds are just a lot prettier, for starters, and character/enemy animations are really quite superb. Enemies die in very animated puffs of smoke, and the boss featured in the demo dungeon features a good amount of sprite-scaling. One of the coolest visual treats, though, is just having the opportunity to see new 2D enemy designs in the Four Swords art style. Enemy designs have been pretty much identical in both style and type in every 2D Zelda game since Link to the Past, even including Four Swords Adventures on the GameCube. The Minish Cap enemies are delightfully original, looking much more detailed and animated.
  • These sites ([32], [33], [34], and [35]) have some stuff, but I have to give my e-mail address to use it, and my e-mail account isn't working right now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From cnn.com:

"Ocarina of Time" also introduces a new gameplay element. Navi, the main character's guardian fairy and travelling companion, will assist by giving you information, warning of danger and giving combat hints when battling enemies.

From gamepro.com: Enemy weapons can be picked up (by you or by other enemies), pieces of armor can be knocked off, and key items can be yanked away with your grappling hook.
  • From [36]:

After playing the import version of The Wind Waker for a week straight, we would have to agree with Miyamoto on all accounts. Only a few hours into the game, any lingering concerns about the Saturday-morning graphics melted away, replaced by awe at the bright, gorgeous world, fluid movement, and myriad ways Link interacts with his surroundings. When Link gets hurt, he really looks like he's in pain. When he gets tired, you can see the exhaustion in his face. When he's trying to be sneaky, he's got the sly squint of a thief on the prowl. And it's not just him--everyone (friends and enemies) and even a few things (fire, smoke, explosions, trees) have a similarly impressive range of possible interactions and animations.

But enough about the graphics...

Whatever it looks like, the core gameplay of Zelda is rock solid--The Wind Waker is definitely a Zelda game. Like the evolution from Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine, The Wind Waker takes the basic system and controls of the Nintendo 64 Zelda titles and improves on them, adds to them, and mixes them up a bit. The result is a game that will feel familiar to fans of the series, but new at the same time.

Take dungeons: As in every Zelda game, you still explore a series of caverns in The Wind Waker. You still find one important item (boomerang, bow and arrows, etc.) in each stage, still find keys to unlock doors, still solve puzzles, and still fight bosses. But a few new abilities expand upon these traditional aspects. As Miyamoto says, "Zelda has always been based on the player thinking things through--figuring out puzzles and moving into the next room. We've tried to focus on ways to improve that." For example, now that you can pick up and use or throw enemy weapons, you might have to smash open a doorway with an enemy's oversized sword, or toss a lit staff to burn down another blocked passage. Or sneak past guards by hiding under a barrel. Or use a giant leaf to blow moving platforms along. Or take control of another character to cooperate on activating two switches at once. And that's just a small taste of what the game has to offer. Plenty of surprises await even the most diehard Zelda veteran--just take a look around this preview for more examples.

Artichoker[talk] 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, good job! Ford MF (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's perfectly good information that probably wouldn't fit well in any other article. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - IT is long since time to delete this article, it has been a while ago and has shown no improvement since there is no information that would make this notable and justify a whole article on this subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a list of characters; it's a list of obstacles. It is not the job of Wikipedia to exhaustively catalogue every object in a fictional work; indeed, such work vastly exceeds what WP:NOT and WP:V allow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in spite of this article being "flagged for rescue", no decent sources have been added. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about Artichoker, but I have intermittent internet access, and also have to take care of two children during most of the day. I'm working on it and looking for usable sources as fast as I can. Maybe if more than two editors would help out, we might have gotten more "decent" sources written in by now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes sorry, this page slipped my mind yesterday, but I'll try to do some work on it today. Artichoker[talk] 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time to research due to school, but I did a search on Moblin. Apparently, "moblin" isn't trademarked, because there's an enemy type in Final Fantasy XI called Moblin, and some sort of cellular phone deal both called moblin. I have a feeling there's something sourcable to work with there if anyone cares to follow up what I started. On the other hand, I did the same search on goriya and octorok, got nothing. McJeff (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup a bit. Zelda is a long-spanning series with enough enemies that reoccur between entries to deserve this article, but it needs some better sourcing.-ABigBlackMan (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its a list and sourcing (and out of universe material) should be ok on the parent article alone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim considerably. I would hope that a more modest and appropriate article would satisfy people, but I unfortunatly know that some are opposed to this sort of content at all, even for notable fictions. DGG (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a GameFAQs article. It doesn't even pretend to be an encylopedia article. Delete this game guide. --Phirazo 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then revise it so that it reads better, but not really much reason to outright delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once you remove the game guide elements, there isn't anything left. This belongs on GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. --Phirazo 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JNN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You provide NO valid reasons for deletion. McJeff (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOT#GUIDE --Phirazo 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • General inclusionist essays don't change the fact that this article is a game guide. --Phirazo 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And it isn't a game guide to begin with, so this whole argument is moot. See also what a guide is. McJeff (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A direct quote from the article: "Spiked Beetles have spiked carapaces on their topside, and will race at Link if he is within their line of sight. They are invulnerable as long as they are upright, but if the player blocks their charge with his shield, they will be flipped over, exposing their vulnerable undersides." The whole article reads like that. How is that not a game guide? --Phirazo 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It would be far more reasonable to rewrite the sentance as "Spiked Beetles have sword-repellant spiked carapaces on their top side to protect their vulnerable undersides." Not a game guide anymore.
                      • Fixed to remove gameguide information. Artichoker[talk] 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Every entry reads like that one though. Even slashed down like that, it is still a game guide entry. This is a list of enemies and how to defeat them, pure game guide stuff. --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Not anymore, most of them have been majorly trimmed and most of the gameguide information has been deleted. Artichoker[talk] 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:GAMECRUFT. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see some actual reasons for deletion instead of just vague gestures at heavily interpretable policies. McJeff (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are actual reasons. Can you show how this article meets those guidelines? Randomran (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they're not reasons. They might be if the person listing them explained how the article is in violation, but simply naming a policy is meaningless. None the less, I'll justify why the article should be kept.
          • 1) As the article is a list with a notable parent topic, it does not need to meet WP:NOTE.
          • 2) As per cleanups, the article no longer violates NOT#GUIDE
          • 3) Article's current form is in fully compliance with GAMECRUFT, per the phrase A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting..
        • McJeff (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1.) Summary style is not a free ticket for cruft. 2.) This is a list of enemies, and how to defeat them. 3.) 300-500 words is concise (see Wikipedia:Plot summaries). 4,000+ words is not. I'm sure if this article is kept, it will creep back to 13,000+ words, which is where it was at before the AfD. Besides, WP:GAMECRUFT, which you claim "full compliance" with, says that "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" are "beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games." --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The thing about "lists of gameplay items etc..." was intended to keep things like lists of all available cars out of Grand Theft Auto articles. Not a concise list where notability is demonstrated in the lede. And I'm sure if this article is kept, it will creep back to 13,000+ words, which is where it was at before the AfD is a pretty falacious argument. McJeff (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see the difference between this article and a list of the cars in Grand Theft Auto. You can't claim compliance with WP:GAMECRUFT, since this is exactly the sort of content it discourages. --Phirazo 12:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you don't see it, you're not looking hard enough, or you don't want to see it. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Take the assumptions of bad faith elsewhere. It's a list of enemies in a game in which enemies are obstacles, not characters central to the plot. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The detail in this article is currently excessive, but this article is important in that it effectively identifies and summarizes recurring elements throughout the Zelda series. The introduction is a particularly good summarization. It doesn't have enough sources yet, but there is no question that sources exist. While I would be okay with seeing this content split up and moved to a Zelda-pedia like zeldawiki.org, I think the contribution here is within the scope of an encyclopedia. Dcoetzee 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep. The obvious comparison to this article is List of Mario series enemies, which, while not perfect, is in much better shape in terms of how it approaches the enemies list. I think, from the standpoint of completeness, that there's no reason we can't cover enemies that have appeared in the majority of the Zelda games, such that these can be redirected search terms for those seeking that information. Note, however, I say "majority"; a spot check shows all these currently qualify for that, so that's not an issue but needs to be asserted to keep the list growth in check and avoid one-time foes. However, clearly going off the Mario article, each enemy needs one and exactly one paragraph about it: ideally first game it appeared in, a brief description (amalgamating the changes over the games to a single line) and behavior. There's a lot to cleanup, but if done, this article can properly support the Zelda series article, and thus not need to fully assert notability (the topic being the series), with a decent potential for finding sources for notability later. --MASEM 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, this and a few other articles could be combined for a "Common features/elements of the Zelda series" (I'm looking at Races in The Legend of Zelda series, which really is in bad shape too from this aspect.) --MASEM 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those articles are in dire need of cleanup as well, but I think it would be confusing to try and combine them. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has been reduced to one third of its size at the beginning of the AfD following the removal of most-if-not-all gameguide content. [37]. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is still a guide to enemies in The Legend of Zelda, though. --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, no? It's a list, not a guide. McJeff (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is a guide. "[In] Ocarina of Time [Biri] will always shock Link if he attacks it with a metal weapon — they can instead be safely attacked using a Deku Stick, Boomerang, or by stunning them with a Deku Nut." --Phirazo 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed. Artichoker[talk] 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • They're all like that, though. I'm just going down the list. Shall I quote the gameplay mechanics from Bubble? Even without gameplay mechanics, it is still the sort of article discouraged under WP:GAMECRUFT. --Phirazo 17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • For that matter, GAMECRUFT is a guideline and not a policy. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. McJeff (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah yes, the boilerplate from {{guideline}}. My "common sense" tells me Wikipedia would be better off without this article. This sort of article lowers the overall quality of the entire encylopedia. It serves as the bad example and justification for dozens of other articles just like it. This article is not "the occasional exception". The "occasional exception" is when you need to explain a game mechanic in order to properly explain a game. For example, you need to know how to use the Portal gun to understand Portal, but you don't need to how to steal a car in Grand Theft Auto. All the reader needs to know is that you can steal cars in Grand Theft Auto. Similarly, we don't need to go into detail on how to defeat every single monster in the Legend of Zelda. That is what GameFAQs is for. A short discussion about how the series has strategic battles and the general themes of enemy characters will suffice. An exception to the rules should only be made when it makes the encylopedia better. This article is centered around the "how" of the Legend of Zelda games, not the "what". It does nothing to explain what The Legend of Zelda is, it only describes how to play it. --Phirazo 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My "common sense" tells me Wikipedia would be better off without this article. This sort of article lowers the overall quality of the entire encylopedia. It serves as the bad example and justification for dozens of other articles just like it. Hmm. So you don't like it. Now if only I hadn't had to spend the better part of two days wittling down your arguments to get to that core. McJeff (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And you like it. So what? My liking or disliking this article doesn't invalidate my arguments. I stand by my statement that Wikipedia is better off without this article and any article that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Besides, you sidestepped the more important question here: Since you seem to agree that this article is discouraged under WP:GAMETRIVIA, why should this article be exempted from those guidelines? --Phirazo 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (undent) Please do not utilize strawmen. I am not arguing in favor of all and any gameguide content, I am arguing in favor of this particular article in regards to this particular game primarily because the parent topic - the Legend of Zelda series - is extraordinarily notable within the videogame world, behind only Mario Bros, and of moderate notability world over. Therefore, it meets WP:N, and don't forget that as a list, it is not subject to the same stringent notability requirements that standalone articles are.
Meanwhile, I see almost nothing in any deletionist vote that isn't discouraged under the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - in fact, the only ones that were valid have been addressed and the problems they cited with the article fixed, as seen in the massive amount of cruft removed from the article and the new lede. Meanwhile, you've just added WP:NOGOOD and WP:JNN to the vast list of invalid deletion arguments you've put forward.
I don't understand why you're not getting this. Read the article. It is discriminate, reduced mainly to the creatures appearing in every Zelda game, it is currently relatively well written with many editors working on improving it, and multiple sources to demonstrate notability have been found. You simply need to get over your dislike of videogame content and acknowledge that the article is perfectly well within wikipedia standards at this current point. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The notability of the parent article is entirely irrelevant in this article. It's not a matter of like or dislike, it's a matter of guidelines and policies, which you're dutifully ignoring. The entire article is excessive - it's a list of enemies in a game where the majority of enemies are not important to the plot and don't have to be covered for a reader to understand the game, unlike a list of characters that is more widely accepted as a spinout article for understanding of the plot. This goes into excessive detail on an unimportant part of the series - the enemies - which is only necessary for a player in the series, and thus violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. In any case, it's undue weight on a part of the series that doesn't need to be covered, something that is cited by WP:GAMECRUFT in regards to articles like this. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason why it should be deleted, perhaps the article needs a better name, perhaps List of ... ZyMOS (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per ZyMOS, but need to be cited more in my view. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - Either merge the relevant content to the series article if an appropriate summary isn't already available or just delete it. There seems to be very little potential for creation or reception information, and there is really nothing to say about any of those single enemies. TTN (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty clear per WP:NOT. This kind of content belongs more properly on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe change to Commonly Recurring Enemies in the Zelda Series. MuZemike (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Le Grand and DGG, as usual. I do also agree with ZyMOS's suggestion about possibly renaming the article to "List of enemies in The Legend of Zelda series" as per standard naming conventions. GlassCobra 23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. And WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed, and this isn't a game guide. The Legend of Zelda series is notable, as are the enemies that appear in the series. Are you saying Octoroks and Skulltulas are not notable? Peahats? Moblins? The Legend of Zelda series has sold over 52 million copies. Even if one accepts that only people who played the games in the Legend of Zelda series would be interested in this information, that's at least 52 million people. This list is fine as a sub-article of The Legend of Zelda (series). If there is room on Wikipedia for a list of Soul Eater episodes, surely there is room on Wikipedia for a list of enemies that have appeared in one of the top 15 best-selling videogame franchises of all time. If this list "violates" WP:GAMECRUFT, then WP:GAMECRUFT is wrong, sorry to say. If the article contains no "critical coverage", how about consulting any of the thousands of reviews that have been written about these games and enemies? And saying onlines sources that require you to pay for access aren't valid is absolutely ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nigger Tape

The Nigger Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ALBUMS; non-notable mixtape. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if properly sourced - this blog seems to indicate that a degree of controversy has surrounded this release. If proper sources can be found that show this (the blog quotes someone mentioning Wal-Mart and Target although doesn't go into detail) this could be used to assert some notability. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I re-read the blog, following DCEdwards1966 comment, and have changed my opinion! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC: "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". Article very lacking in WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, as the blog I mentioned above seems to imply, a controversial release, that should confer some notability, yes? That is, of course, assuming that reliable sources can be found. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm an idiot, and mis-read the blog! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Cities

Runescape Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is basically a guide to every city in Runescape. More suitable for a fansite, not Wikipedia. All in-universe information. Fancruft, no use to non-Runescape players. No real world information, no claims of notability either. No sources, all OR.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CoasttoCoast. Ironholds 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or transwiki to Wikibooks. tgies (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Gran2 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article contains no sources to demonstrate notability or verifiability. No need to redirect, as it an unlikely search term and has no other articles linking to it. No need to transwiki as the Runescape Wiki already does the job. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, clear consensus that an independent page should not continue and cannot see anything relevant to merge but does seem to be a valid redirect. Davewild (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Check Children

AfDs for this article:
Security Check Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After searching in multiple database archives I could not find real significant discussion of this article's subject matter in independent WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. I thought it possible that a prod could be contested so I am bringing this to AfD for a discussion about it. There is some related material at List of Scientology Security Checks, but I do not think a merge is needed and in any case discussion in this forum will solicit further commentary about what to do with this page. If anyone does know of significant discussion of this subject matter in independent secondary sources, feel free to mention them or just add it to the article. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything useful not already included in the List of Scientology Security Checks page, delete the rest. Ironholds 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ironholds said it best (and first!) --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article and even I suggest merge and redirect - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Scientology Security Checks, as suggested above. The article doesn't assert enough notability to warrant a stand-alone article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of 3rd party sources. --Rob (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not a poll. Please let us know your reason for the strong delete. DigitalC (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default to keep) - this debate has turned into a comparison of Google hits, and we know that the amount of Google hits the subject of an article has is not a good test of notability. On the contrary, the points brought up by MrPrada and TomStar81 illustrate why the subject is notable. The fact that an article needs cleanup or needs to be wikified is also not a reason to delete it; notability and cleanup needed appear to be the only grounds given for deletion. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Woodward

Daniel P. Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Article on a brigadier general whose career does not stand out from the hundreds of other 1 star generals currently on active duty, nor from the thousands of brigadier generals in the past. The afd tag was removed with the claim of finding 92,000 hits on google, but the real number is 33[38] when you put quotes around his name. Not currently a commander, nor any notable commands in the past. Article is a cut and paste of the official USAF bio. Maybe in the future he will be notable, but as of now, no Nobunaga24 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing notable in Wikipedia terms about this general. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He is the director of Regional Affairs of a US air force department. (he's not just a 1 star general) That hints at some notability in the US public service sphere. Artene50 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CLEANUP urgently required per WP is not a service record or curriculum vitae. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. J-8 at the Pentagon during wartime exceeds standards for notability. MrPrada (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An officer with any amount of stars on his or her shoulders meets minimum notability requirements, though I agree with Ohconfucius that the article needs alot of help with regards to cleanup and directory. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some months ago, I asked whether a nation's top military commander (not just a brigadier general) would be considered notable by dint of being the commander, and the idea was declined (see here, searching for "Daoud"). I can't provide any other links for a place that the notability of military leaders, per their positions as military leader, has been discussed; since the only remotely policy-related page that deals with this says no, I say delete. Give more reliable sources, and he'll be notable, but because of the different sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately that discussion is now archived, I wish I had known. Before I had my user page deleted, I had listed the criteria that I used in determining what I thought was notable for military personnel. I said (as far as US personnel) all 3 and 4 star flag officers were notable just by their rank, 2 stars maybe, and 1 stars really need to have something beyond just being a 1 star flag officer - i.e. first whatever-American to make flag rank (Benjimin O. Davis Sr.), a notable exploit or award (such as Robin Olds or Chuck Yeager), or the top officer in their field (Jesse Cross, the Quartermaster General). Most one stars are in a deputy capacity, a chief of staff, a directorship, or in a lower level command (not in charge of the thousands or tens of thousands that 2, 3, and 4 stars are in charge of. And there are literally hundreds on active duty at any given time. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobunaga24 narrowed his ghits to 33, but the correct number is 5. This GoogleNews link illustrates the extent of coverage he has received in reliable sources. Clearly, he has fallen far short of the significant coverage requirement of WP:BIO. See also WP:MILMOS#NOTE, the military notability guidelines, which he doesn't meet either. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobunaga24 is correct. Its 33 hits...which is why I maintain a weak keep on him. Brewcrewer's 5 hits search result is incorrect--the first two have nothing to do with Brigadier General Daniel P. Woodward at all (unless he was recently jailed, something I highly doubt) while the fifth deals with an article from 1893 before Woodward was even born. I found this air force web site which has pertinent info. on Woodward here Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood my point. Nobunaga24 is correct and I'm correct. What I am saying is that the important search should be GoogleNews (my search), not plain Google (Nobunaga24's search). GoogleNews determines the media coverage that he has received, which is the most important criteria of WP:BIO. I also noticed that three out of the five do not refer to him, but didn't bother mentioning it because 5 hits is worthless anyway. The fact some of them don't even refer to him actually strengthens my assertion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Googlenews is not really a fair comparison because an individual may not be mentioned in the news every week or two. Googlesearch is the better option. Artene50 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    GoogleNews goes back to as far as there are newspapers. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information, only for 4500 newspapers, though. The Bolling AFB newspaper in Washington D.C. is published daily and has thousands of air force stories in their archive going back to the 70s, but are not available on googlenews. The fifty or so Gannet papers which have been publishing since the 1800s, like the Army Times (which is a private paper), use their own archive engine (nl.newsbank.com) and also don't show up in googlenews. MrPrada (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if he is truly notable, i.e. he has received significant coverage in multiple sources, surely something would show up in Googlenews. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megajosh2:Runescape

Megajosh2:Runescape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedia article, just someones stats in Runescape. He moved this from his userspace to article space. It should go to MFD if it was still there. This does not belong anywhere on WIkipedia.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not your webhost. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, speedy delete per A7. If not A7, then some other criterion. It has to meet at least one. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Looks like one persons game stats. --Thetrick (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ERcheck (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acurax.com

Acurax.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. User created another article and contested the speedy - Acurax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ERcheck (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acurax

Acurax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youjav.com

Youjav.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web pron upload site. No references at all, not able to verify. Original author blocked for persistent spamming and inappropriate new articles. Contested speedy. I removed the subsequent prod to get this over with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Reilly

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

Not notable. No sources at all, no relevant Google hits, unable to verify awards claimed. Contested speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Neil Reilly in this AfD has no apparent connection to that in the first one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

BPPN

BPPN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a poorly written article that has multiple problems that haven't been solved in over a year. In my opinion, it looks like someone published their personal essay on Wikipedia Tavix (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it is not very notable. And anyway, there is already a Wikipedia Indonesia article on it here. That's good enough for this entity. Artene50 (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what happens to the 96% of the world's people who don't speak Indonesian? Having an entry on another language wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it should be kept.--Merbabu (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable goverment agency. Poorly written articles (which it is) is not for afd, they should be cleaned up. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly established. Its poor quality is not a matter for afd. --Merbabu (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep critical agency within some difficult stages of Indonesian national development - poorly written does not constitute a reason for deleting. WP Indonesia Language articles are never substitutes for articles in WP English at any point SatuSuro 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argue Street

Argue Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small residential street, not notable. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence that this street is notable. JJL (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - should probably be grouped with the other roads listed in {{Roads in Winnipeg}} --T-rex 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJL. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is generic municipal infrastructure, with no distinguishing characteristics (other than not being parallel to other streets), nor any historical or cultural value. Mindmatrix 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The hit squad

The hit squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Machinima series that has not yet started production. No assertion of notability. Claims to be a TV series, but gives no evidence of whether it will actually be on TV (which might start to lend some notability) or just on a website. Drat (Talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As non-notable and per WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone`
  • Strong Delete Reference are both to self-published websites, not actually a TV show yet. No mention of where it will be aired. Quote due to start production in July 2008. How about creating an article about something after it actually exists. Faradayplank (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwenglish

Norwenglish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found for this "language", just blogs and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the main "reference" cites Wikipedia? Circular referencing? Huon (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep should better references be added; otherwise, delete. tgies (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All language pairs have unique (and often amusing) constructs formed by non-native speakers from one language to another. This particular one (most Norwegians are proficient with English, among other things) is not sufficiently notable. Furthermore, in the example presented, "I laid it on the table" is not ungrammatical, as there are plenty of objects that may be lain on a table. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simulated City Records

The Simulated City Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of how this is notable per WP:MUSIC. Only two releases thus far, both by one of the two operators. Drat (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:
Archive Of Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Drat (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. There is an undeniable consensus that he fails WP:ATHLETE - but the point has also been well-made that he seems to satisfy our general notability criteria all the same. Please note that per WP:BIO (of which WP:ATHLETE is a subsection) the overriding criterion is whether or not the person has been covered by reliable sources, a claim that has not been refuted in this discussion. Judging this subject per WP:ATHLETE alone is losing sight of the forest for the trees. Shereth 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Cervi

Dominic Cervi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player has not sufficiently satisfied the notability requirements for a soccer player. GauchoDude (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A Senior national team call-up may notable. Matthew_hk tc 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. A call-up does not make a player notable unless he actually features in a game. --Jimbo[online] 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do Olympic qualifying matches provide notability? I thought they did. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE, in addition the Olympic team is not a senior team, so I don't really think it confers notability. --Angelo (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if he becomes notable. GiantSnowman 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while he does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE, he does satisfy WP:Notability, which takes precedence - reliable, third-party source coverage. See, for instance, [39] (about 3 or 4 of the articles focus specifically on him). He was also a first-round draft pick in the 2008 SuperDraft - I believe we have kept several of those articles in the past (now it's mostly a moot point since most of those players have made appearances in MLS by now). Incidentally, this is pretty much irrelevant but it seems quite strange that we should have articles on every MLS keeper, most of whom are American, yet we are going to delete an article on the guy who Bob Bradley has selected over all but one of them in his squad for WC qualifiers! But as I say, that's irrelevant, I guess. ugen64 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The definition of notable athlete is: WP:ATHLETE Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

He meets it clause (a) as both the U-23 Men's Team and the full National Team are professionals participating in the Olympic league or the World Cup league. A league is not so myopic to be defined as the MLS or OPL. Just in case you are not aware, the players on the National Team do get paid to play for their Country's team and there is not a higher level team than your Country team. National team soccer is not an amateur sport, even in the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambrick (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The definition of a notable soccer player is clearly outlined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (can be found here), which states he has to 1. play on a fully professionally club (which he doesn't), 2. played in a competitive fixture between to fnpl clubs such as the fa cup or equivalent (which he hasn't), 3. play a senior international game or in the olympics (which he hasn't). Rule 4 would not apply as he is not pre-professional era. The fact that he will "eventually" play in the Olympics is null and void due to WP:FUTURE. If/When he appears, then recreate the article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete University soccer is a common way of American soccer player to become professional, FIFA U-20 World Cup often became University Stars XI, but they were yet to be professional despite played for U23/U20 team. Also, he is not the unused second goalkeeper against Barbados. Matthew_hk tc 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I don't understand - it appears that American footballers aren't considered American athletes, because notable college athletes in other sports, including baseball, basketball, and American football are all considered notable, not because they have played in the highest level of professional sports (they haven't), but because one can find reliable third-party sources focusing on their college careers. Yes, in the five years I've been here I have heard of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS once or twice, but the fact is, one must take into account the different systems used in sports throughout the world - in the US, only a select few players actually play professionally before finishing four years of college, while in Europe, it's even more unheard of for a professional footballer to succeed after going to college for 4 years. Applying WP:ATHLETE to the letter excludes some perfectly notable Brazilian footballers because of the dichotomy between state and national competitions (oh, wait, no it doesn't - but that's an argument for another place altogether), and it does as well to some notable Americans. ugen64 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no arguments presented for doing something else. - Bobet 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Albertson Park

Jay Albertson Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, the delete arguments given have been refuted, or made moot since the article has been improved (good job, although it looks weird with more refs and links than prose). - Bobet 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 55

Hill 55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This hill lacks notability since it has not been (and it does not appear likely that it will) be covered in 3rd party sources. The only reason this hill might even close to notable is because Carlos Hathcock once operated from there according to the article on him. However, this does not appear to make the location itself notable or likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with hydraton31 above.Also the article is extremely short and would be a canidate for csd-A1.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable in this form considering the lack of any information to support the short stub. The stub itself is vague and presents nothing except for geographical location. If more information was provided in support of the battle and its participants it could be elaborated on. As it stands, my DELETE recommendation is actually longer than the article. - Trippz (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This stub provides zero verifiable information on the precise location of Hill 55. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears it was a significant base of operations during the Vietnam War. [40] [41] --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am seeing arguments for cleanup, and not deletion. Very strange that this would be nominated when Hill 55 was just in the news this week. Google Scholar is also promising with several essays that discuss it to some degree. Google Books has two books entirely about Hill 55 in the first five search results, Heart of the Third Sector, Hill 55 by George A Hill - 2005, and Hill - 55: Just South of Danang Vietnam by David E. Adams - 2002, 1968-1970 in GoogleNews returns a dozen articles about it, and all dates includes a hundred resulsts. Personally I do not see a possible way we could delete this under any existing AFD policy, and I'm afraid the A1 speedy delete claims have not given the topic due diligence in this case. I know nothing about the subject, I'm not the person to fix the problems, but to CSD a promising stub would be a mistake. MrPrada (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under normal military naming practices, any hill which is 55 metres high is frequently called 'Hill 55', so Google searches on this particular hill are unlikely to be effective. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for a disambiguation and/or a stub highlighting some of the major ones. As an aside, I believe all of the links I've provided above refer to the same Hill 55, especially the two books. MrPrada (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrPrada. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Please see User:Nick Dowling's comment above, that it is a common practice to name hills 55 metres high, Hill 55. There may be dozens of these and nothing makes this one noteworthy.Renee (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, while that is true, the numerous sources I listed pertain to the same Hill 55 in Da Nang which is notable. MrPrada (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As stated Hill 55 is just an arbitrary designation, but this Hill 55 does have some events associated with it including the establishment there of E.J. Land's "sniper school" which resulted in Hathcock's legendary accomplishments. Otherwise, though, it is just one of many "hot" locations in Vietnam that come up again and again in accounts but are otherwise undistinguished, e.g. as the site of a major battle or objective. I think this one is easily sourced (try "Hill 55" + "Da Nang" in Google Books, for instance) and while its notability is not great it is more than just another hill. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this is really a WP:N issue--There are plenty of King Henry's of England, too. It seems to me to be more of a WP:V issue--is the 'Hill 55' being talked about by any particular WP:RS really identified with one or more other RS's Hill 55, sufficient to document coverage? If there's one notable Hill 55, the fact that there are N+1 other, non-notable Hill 55's doesn't impinge on that notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources are present. Every scene of battle in a war is a reasonable article topic. Considering the extreme detail that is included in military histories, there will be no lack of further sources, and this does apply to every one of them. DGG (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Judging by the improvements made thus far, this is an obvious keep per WP:HEY. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was A7 by Selket, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divine (rapper)

Divine (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Stumbled across this little gem this morning. Rapper without an album, on a small label. The website for Supreme Records didn't show this guy as a signed artist. I couldn't find any albums by this individual on the major CD distributors' web sites. An anonymous IP has pared down the article, but apparently the legions of Divine fans have yet to repair the article to its previous version that mentioned Rakim and Nas so many times that I forgot who the article was about. There is a claim about reaching the top of the college charts, but no real reference - just a link to the main page of 2 hip-hop sites, and the burden is on the articles creator to show the reference, not on me to track it down. Meets none of the criteria for notability for musicians. Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 He hit two indie charts that don't have pages, and released albums on non-notable labels. No assertation of notability that I see. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "A7" stipulates "no claim of notability;" I wanted to A7 it myself, but the mere reasonable claim invalidates the CSD; so we have to prove the claim or delete through here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur about lack of established notability; needs WP:RS indicating such. JJL (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shereth 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macky (Photographer)

Macky (Photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Macky (Photographer) (so capitalized) is a photographer whose article starts Andrew "Macky" McDonald and that refers to our man as Andrew. Apparently he's a regular contributor to Rock Sound magazine but that's not on the shelves of my local newsagents so I can't check. Since 2004 Andrew has been a frequent documentary photographer for Icelandic rock band Mínus -- a band whose article appears to be sourced to its MySpace page. He's had work exhibited in various impressive sounding places as part of the touring Shoot Nations International Youth Day exhibition which indeed sounds very promising. He has a website, here. It's remarkably uninformative. Googling brings up this, which may or may not be about the same person but anyway is about equally uninformative. Neither site has anything about a book or solo exhibition or indeed anything else (unless perhaps this is obscured within Flash or some similar mumbo-jumbo). I decided to google for "Shoot Nations" "International Youth Day". Well, the result is just two hits: this article and something that indexes it. The assertions are minor and even these are not verifiable: the article's had an "Unreferenced" tag since April; enough's enough. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in spite of the compelling entry on his CV. There's nothing to see here, move along... Pinkville (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hoary's excellent research. Fails WP:Bio, thoroughly NN. Debate 木 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above, no evidence of notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hoary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:N Artene50 (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete yadda yadda yadda His CV confirms this is a prank, not a real article. I'm a more notable photographer than this guy, and I've hung out and toured with and photographed rock/alternative/punk bands that actually have articles on Wikipedia--extensively sourced, long standing articles. All of a sudden I see a need to write an article about myself. I have a lot more than 2 google hits, and none are my MySpace page. Yup, 26 distinct google hits on my full name in quotes, mostly to news sites. Okay, I admit, 4 are posts to list-serves. But my CVs longer than 3 words. --Blechnic (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or one word, repeated...? Pinkville (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damn, you're too smart for me.... --Blechnic (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable contributions, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Behrend

Bruno Behrend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish the notability of this radio personality. Newspaper database search brings up only 4 hits (not counting the real estate transaction section, apparently when he bought his house), and all those articles were 1 sentence mentions about a time slot or hosting change. Not the extensive coverage WP:BIO is looking for. Rtphokie (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see false positives and the results mentioned above. There's no evidence of his notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Nicolae Dură, "Christianism in Pontic Dacia" in Revue Roumain d'Histoire, 42.1-4, pp. 5-17, (Bucharest: Publishing House of the Romanian Academy) 2003.
  2. ^ Rebeka Ceravolo, An Iconographic analysis of the retable of saints Andrew and Antonin of Pamier, University of Toledo, Ohio, 2003, p. 20 (pdf) On-line text (pdf file).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_13&oldid=1081073760"