Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 23

< September 22 September 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Blaney

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

Hi - apologies if I've misunderstod but, I am proposing to ""delete"".

  • I nominated for deletion last week, but it was undone without discussion.
  • On rooting around, I see the consensus last time was to delete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donal_Blaney

  • Another editor did respond to my deletion proposal by supplying more references. Fair enough. But the central reason for my proposed deletion, however, is notability - not verifiability.

This guy was a junior official in a political party ten years ago, then got investigated for racism. Definitively un-notable. Given the detail on the CV, it seems a fairly obvious vanity article. Who else would know when this guy was head of Southampton Young Tories?

So, yeah -- Delete - oh, and looking at the previous log ""watch for sockpuppets"". Pistachiones(talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete doesn't appear to be particularly notable and the artilce is definitely weirdly CVish. Speedy G4 if significantly the same as the previously deleted artilce. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - isn't the point that he is currently founder and chairman of the Young Britons' Foundation, not what he did 10 years ago?

Thw fact that that isn't obvious suggests we still ""delete"". The Young Britons Foundation has a page -mention him as founder there. I'm quit surprised the Young Britons Foundation has a page - let alone its officers! This guy, bless 'im, clearly isn't wikinotable. Papyrus - and if you're listing him as a "Television" or "business" person, doubly so!

  • I'm not sure how that makes this an obvious delete. Can you discuss further? Mystache (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[n.b. - edited because I forgot to log in...] Pistachiones (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability established by hague probe, Verifiability by guardian. Mystache (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was being flippant before - but the criteria for politicans are:

- "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." <-- he clearly fails on this test. - "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence" <-- he clearly fails on this one, especially since this needs "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic". The Hague investigation - about which nothing was heard, and which happened nine years ago - does not qualify him.

Being chairman of an insignficant institution which he founded obviously does not justify wikinotability. It's a complete non-entity. Pistachiones (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other thoughts? We have two 'deletes' and one 'keep' thus far. I am, of course, biased, but I do think the argument for keeping doesn't hold water. Pistachiones (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability found. Article does need major rewrite to fall in line with WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search does not indicate notability. all it does is show someone with his name exists, and one of them is the head of a non-notable organisation. no-one has contested that he is the head of YB, so what does the search prove? Being mentioned in articles about the organisation is not non-trivial coverage. there are specific guidelines indicating criteria of whether a politician is notable enough for an article, and he doesn't pass them.Yobmod (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep. Article is known good, has had notability established several times (see previous AfD collection), and the nomination at best a political statement at worst an attempt to cause drama by an account created only for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

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

Notable only within the context of the project. Otherwise doing harm, and non notable in a global context. Segragate account (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I have no idea who is behind this newly created account for the sole purpose of an AfD -- and incidentally, the correct spelling is "segregate" not "segragate" -- but a GA-rated article, which is well-referenced using reliable sources from independent third-parties, is only one of many reasons why this highly stable article is still around, I suspect. Another (more important) reason is because authors are *still* talking about it. The Irish Independent, in fact, just published an article on 20 September 2008 (a few days ago) entitled "Lies, damned lies and the internet" in which the Essjay controversy was discussed. Since April 2007, writers and academics continue to publish on the "Essjay controversy" with articles not yet referenced in our article. According to Factiva, I count over one hundred articles in several different languages including Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and Italian -- all discussing the "Essjay controversy" and what it means for the internet. You'll also find articles discussing the "Essjay controversy" in other English-language media ranging from the Bangkok Post to the Jerusalem Herald. Donna Shaw wrote an academic article for the American Journalism Review discussing the Essjay controversy this year (February 2008). Then there are the legal cases. Last year, we were discussing in the archives about the possibility of creating a legal section in which we cite all the court cases that used the "Essjay controversy" as background. I suppose that section should be created now. Overall, based on the published evidence, the "Essay controversy" is still very much a relevant topic for discussion and debate among journalists, academics, lawyers, and internet activists. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per J Readings and also WP:SNOW. Dr.K. (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather doubt WP:SNOW applies when yours is the second comment. The AfD has only been open for a few hours, and it is not currently showing up on the AfD log, so that may be why it is not receiving many comments. Risker (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SNOW applies also when there is no logical way to think of deleting this article given: 1. Its past deletion debates and their results. 2. Common logic given its significance in Wikipedia's history. I could add a few more reasons but I think I made my point. Dr.K. (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No policy reason for deletion. Sources clearly meet WP:N and way way past. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Dodson

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE - youth cricket is not major cricket, and he has not competed in any form of it thereof according to the two most reliable sources on cricket: Cricinfo & CricketArchive. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long-established consensus that under-19 cricket is not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:ATHLETE (see WP:CRIN). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AllynJ. Johnlp (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lawson (board games)

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

Designer of a series of red-linked board games and there's no evidence he's notable for any other work. According to the article, he "no longer publishes any games." Don't think it's a viable search term so a re-direct isn't particularly beneficial TravellingCari 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, not covered by enough outside sources. Possibly self promotion? Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability and verifiability policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge M. Alvarado

Jorge M. Alvarado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith Aquino

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

Not notable for anything other than having once been married to Michael Aquino, previously deleted for lack of nobility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability can be established. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article does assert notability. It states that she has been a high-profile member and spokesperson for the Church of Satan, appearing "on numerous television and radio programs, even being interviewed by Time magazine." Now that clearly makes her notable, and the present lack of references is ground for a maintenance request, not an AfD. __meco (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- article asserts notability, which is why it wasn't a speedy. Whether it establishes notability is another question. Simply put, if Michael Aquino isn't notable enough for an article, his ex-wife (who is much less significant even among Setians, Satanists, etc.), who is mostly notable because of his connection with him, isn't either. The maintenance requests have been on the article for almost a year. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is warped reasoning. Michael Aquino is not notable because insufficient reliable sources document his purported stature and activities. Should any such sources surface he may suddenly become notable. Lilith Aquino must be estimated for notability not based on the inability of Wikipedia editors to find reliable sources on her husband but on her own merits. If an interview with her in Time magazine exists, that is almost certainly sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. That is why I focused on this alleged fact and assert that our focus ought to be the question of whether that claim is true or not, for which an AFD is not the appropriate procedure. Unless someone has reason to suspect that this claim is false and can convincingly elaborate on that, we should tag the statement in question with {{fact}} and then, if after a suitable time period, noone comes up with a concrete reference we can remove that statement, and then the article could easily be prod'ed or AFD'd, take you pick. Also, had there been any BLP concerns which motivated a wish to have the article deleted, the unreferenced Time statement would not be enough to protect the article's existence pending a prolonged period waiting for a reference request to be fulfilled. There seems not to be any BLP concerns regarding having this article. __meco (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor any evidence of notability. Feel free to find it; it's been a year since the article was tagged. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have you tried searching the Time website, which has archives of just about everything they have ever published, for a interview of her? Lilith Aquino, Lilith Sinclair, Patricia Sinclair, all turned up nothing. The only relevant news stories I can seem to find refer to a single incident where a suit she brought over dismissal from her job was decided against her as she was fired for being "unfriendly... not a witch".[1] There are mentions of 'Lilith Aquino' and 'Time Magazine' on the internet.. on the sites of conspiracy theorists I'm not going to bother to look at.[2] John Nevard (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as at the very least a nonnotable club, and a borderline attack page.  – iridescent 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zecherism

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

It just gave this a quick once over, but it looks like a wp:MADEUPINONEDAY violation. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver DeMille

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

Notability not established. Lead implies he is a prominent figure in the homeschooling movement, but body of article may fail to establish this. The article may be primarily OR; it is nearly all about investigating the academic portion of subject's curriculum vitae. Hurmata (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create this article, but did have a hand in expanding it. The original article was a puff piece but I believe did establish his notability. Please, if you find an instance of OR in this article point it out and excise it by all means. However, as it stands DeMille is notable enough for an article, and the tedium kind of is what it is. The man has a lot of educational claims; the article sources the detail behind them. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit for POV. The present article come very close to being an attack piece, example a "see also:Resume fraud" at the third sub heading, which I have now removed, and other parts represent OR. see for example the discussions of the general nature of a PhD, intended to imply that his wasn't genuine. This may or may not be true, but we just give the facts, without leading the reader to the conclusion--and we do not editorialize by boxed quotes. I can understand why upon seeing this article, one might want to remove it, but the solution is editing. I've just now removed some of the worst, but it's still in the page history as a bad example--and I have not yet attempted to rewrite the part aboput the degrees. . (there's some equally bad editing in the other direction a little further back). DGG (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was even worse than I though--a good the bio was devoted to negative allegations sourced only by a personal web site. I have removed that source, and everything depending upon it. I think I got all or almost all of it, but I think there is enough left for an article, and to show that he's notable.DGG (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In working on it, I observe that UserTruth had readded much of the prejudicial poorly sourced material, and inserted additional material from primary sources, intended to suggest by malfeasance of various sorts, in what amounts to OR. If it is the intention of that user to make an article impossible, he is trying hard. I have just made another pass removing improper material. I think this article should be kept, but it will need watching. I have warned the editor mentioned about WP:BLP. If he continues to violate it, I will consider banning him from the article.DGG (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely untrue. Please respect WP:CIV. I have re-added none of the material you removed, and added nothing prejudicial, and nothing from the Diploma DeMille article. Check the history. Yes, I have presented the multiple versions of his CV in a table, but that is hardly OR. Each line in the table is primary-sourced. All I have done vis-a-vis the DD article since you removed most of its related material is add information in the footnote on the article's inclusion in a third-party journal. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems notable enough. The article is very hard to follow however. I feel that I should say that a person could have an irregular education and go on to do great things, or have an outstanding education and never be notable. So more of the article could be about what he has done and less about his education. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the flow needs work. I think the education section (which could definitely be pared down) is important based on the fact that his books and speaking engagements etc. are almost entirely based on his own educational experience (his version of it at least). Since he brings up the topic so much, that's an open invitation for increased scrutiny, hence the large amount of content in that section. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taulmaril

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

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep why are you copying and pasting that reason on several articles? Anyways, this is Not at all a plot summary. I see no original research either. Or on many of your other AfD Melune (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic snippet of fancruft. --MCB (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; Unfortunately, I can't find any citations, so regrettably, it has to go. Celarnor Talk to me 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'd try to get the information merged somewhere in the description of the game play. Calling the contents plot summary, though, seems to be expanding the meaning significantly. Nor does it really represent OR to describe a weapon in a game from primary sources. But still, there isn't enough information to stand alone, even though its a major game. I try to make sure my answer shows that I did at least read through the article in question and have some idea of the context. DGG (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge not OR or Plot Summary really but, not notable enough for its own article either. Redirect or merge to the character, the book, or similar artilce. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge per Jasynnash2. Because of the lack of notability of this fictional element, all article expansions would result in violations of PLOT and OR, so that's why this stub shouldn't be kept as its own article. – sgeureka t•c 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:PLOT and WP:GNG apply here, as clarified in WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to V (science fiction). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dust (V series)

Red Dust (V series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to' V (science fiction), as it is a prominent plot element to the TV series, and the climax for the miniseries. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeas specified just above. It would greatly help the main article, which is not clear without it, and be exactly the proportional discussion of plot called for in WP:NOT It is time we revisited these articles in a systematic way, to get he material were it is most appropriate. A redirect would be appropriate, for it's a memorable term. DGG (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as both the above. Redirect red dust as a search term if appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. Recurring fictional elements in major series are worthy to be mentioned somewhere on wikipedia, just not as separate articles (unless they establish their notability). – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per DGG. I agree 100% ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Series? Sounds like a cut-and-paste deletion spree. Anyway, it's quite notable as these numerous sources indicate. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye. I didnt notice but this isnt the only afd with that reason. Word for word. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plot summary? What do you mean, this is certainly Notable, has good syntax, and, if my understanding is correct, is also part of a memecentric (yes I made that word up,) internet culture and if deleted will come back repeatedly most likely. Plus, if we add in the meme part, you've got culture. Wasn't this up for deletion once before? And was kept then. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently has nothing to show that the topic requires any more than a mention with a main popular culture section in the main article. Many aspects of the film have some sort of impact here and there, but as shown by the link above, they are mainly covered in the context of the plot. TTN (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete most or all of the trivia section (gasp, I meant "popular culture" section). Wednesday Next (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Things like [3] and [4] indicate it is very commonly referenced in popular culture. Sources are diverse and each not overly on topic, but overall, just fine. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the movie's page. This is VERY, VERY fancrufty and certainly does not warrant independent encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the entire trivia section as unencyclopedic. Merge and redirect what's left to the movie's page. This level of detail is far too deep for a joke that took less than two minutes in the movie. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and unoriginal research. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yea, though ye count to three, the Article be kept; four being right out. Counteth to two, it sufficeth not. Keep, and lo, the Killer Rabbit slain shall be, and thy Fame (and that of the article in Wikipedia) assured shall be; Notability assured; and thy Fame endureth for all time. Keep, I say, keep! Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all of the above. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - It's one of the most, if not THE most, recognizable parts of the movie, used extensively in popular culture. Not fancruft, as stated by Eusebeus, when it's immediately recognized just by mere mention, even by people who have never seen the movie itself. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep When something has multiple independent sources, then an argument that it is trivial none the less seems to ignore WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but, rewrite somewhat (removing the instructions and incorporating some of the more important "trivia" things from the bottom into the body of the article. Sources for its influence on other fictional magic items, etc would also help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This 'element of fiction' is more than thirty years old, but our article on it is still read 230 times per day on average. That's plenty of 'independent sources' establishing this as notable... oh and then there are all those books too. --CBD 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zorg ZF-1

Zorg ZF-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's mentioned in the main article for The Fifth Element and I think that is enough. Since Zorg is a main character, and already has a redirect, I cannot see creating one also for the weapon. I wish at least this much level of explanation had been present in the nomination to facilitate the discussion. But I too want to se such articles deleted, and I'll try to fill the gaps in the rationale. DGG (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable and unlikely search term. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and basically a paraphrase of the movie (with all the copyright implications that come with such things). Nburden (T) 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karpaga

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

The subject of the article is supposed to be "the first transgender ever in India to perform a leading role in a mainstream movie", however the movie has not been filmed, the director is not found in IMDB, nor is the actress. The article fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. The two sources given do not have "significant coverage", but barely a paragraph each about the "actress". SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Agree with Michael Schmidt. Apparently, the person seems to have become notable and popular in that part of the world even before the movie has been released. Docku:“what up?” 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that none of those sources have "significant coverage" about the person in question. There are no more than five or six sentences about Karpaga in each one, often repeating. Most of those sources are about the movie. If no sources can be found that are about the person, I recommend this page be move to Paal and be re-focused to be about the movie. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It must be noted that transgenderism has for the most part been unaccepted in India [5], [6], [7], and is only now "coming out of the closet" [8], [9], [10], so in-depth interviews may be slow in coming. No doubt as filming of Paal begins there will be more and greater focus on and interviews of Karpaga and fellow Indian transsexual celebrities. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chuckle_Brothers#Stage. Not much else you can do, all the content is in the main article. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Chuckles and The Kingdom of the Mythical Sulk

Indiana Chuckles and The Kingdom of the Mythical Sulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability, not appropriate for a speedy deletion --RedHillian | Talk 20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Chuckle Brothers. --erachima talk 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per erachima; it exists but no sign of notability. --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chuckle_Brothers#Stage where this tour is discussed. Notability not asserted in article, nor was it found in a gsearch. Gnews only came up with this, but I can't really assess the reliability or independence.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ffm 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Heights, California

Lavender Heights, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pseudo-location. Seems to be a neologism - see a google search that turns up 435 hits, mostly wiki-copies. Would suggest merge, but the page seems to be entirely a directory or guidebook. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found some references in the Sacramento Bee, NPR and LA Times: [11]. It's enough to confirm there's something by this name in Midtown Sacramento, but it's unclear if this is an official designation or just a nickname some people have for part of Midtown Sacramento. If it's the former this probably deserves an article, but I'm assuming it's the latter, so merge to Midtown Sacramento. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lavender Heights is on SN&R literature and is the known name of this location. rkmlai (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (of Sacramento)[reply]
SN&R? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sacramento News & Review, locally known as SN&R.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a distinct "gay village"district in Sacramento. Like The Castro in San Francisco, it isn't an "official" municipality, but sources like the Sacramento Bee frequently refer to it as specific neighborhood that's the center of the city's LGBT community. [12] --Oakshade (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia's notability requires "significant coverage from multiple third-party sources". As far as I can tell, people are putting up links that mention the place by name, but don't give it "significant coverage" - unlike The Castro, which has books, news, and websites about the place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of WP:NOTABILITY and I'm also aware that the wording is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." (the word "multiple" is not included in guideline.) Even the CBS 13 piece is significant coverage by a reliable source in addition to the Sacramento Bee pieces.--Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - wait a minute. Are you seriously considering a video of less than one minute (in which the reporter says "Fabulous" in a lisp at least four times for no reason) to be significant coverage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant. Television shows/reports are considered reliable sources and in this case, beyond WP:N's scope of "trivial," whether a reporter says "Fabulous" with a lisp or not. (more than a minute, btw) --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only significant if it's actually *about* Lavender Heights. The piece is less than a minute (when you take out the news anchors wind-up) about how to revitalize a neighborhood. The only thing the piece actually says about Lavender Heights is that it's been revitalized. And that it's fabulous. If you want a laugh, I recommend watching it - it could not be considered "significant" by any stretch. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched it before my first comment. As WP:NOTABILITY defines "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." "Less than exclusive" means the sources don't have to be exclusively *about* the topic as you are claiming. The CBS 13 piece news piece shows in detail of how Lavender Heights has been improved. It goes in depth about the neighborhood, even in its minute. "Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY is a "passing mention" or a "directory listing". Even by your critical description, it goes beyond the scope of either of those. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My gut feeling was that while this neighborhood is well known in Sacramento, it probably wasn't known outside the area. However, a gnews search comes up with the neighborhood being called this in the LA Times, Seattle Times, and even NPR. Works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought. Merge/redirect to Midtown Sacramento also works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Lavender Heights", keep, and mark as an informal place-name. To me the title syntax "Lavender Heights, California" suggests an official city name. --Lockley (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept per finding of sources, nominator withdrawal, and some light frost. Non-admin closure. --erachima talk 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Day

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

this article has had nearly 3 years since its last afd. still no sources have been found. if the claims in the article are true then sources should be available and once found the article rewritten accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment i agree that the new article, based on the sources found since opening this afd, can be kept. it can still be greatly improved if further sources can be found. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... how do you source an article like this anyway? If the concern is simply having a source for the definition of opposite day, then The Game-a-Day Book by Gyles Brandreth, published 1980, might be a suitable reference. It's a book (which I own) that contains the rules for various children's games and has opposite day as one of its entries. For the liar's paradox bit I suppose the best resource would be books about logic puzzles. --erachima talk 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I originally read the article looked at the nominators position and went Delete. Than I took a moment, stepped back and did a quick Google News search and lo and behold it came back with quite a few hits, such as the Economist – CNN – Washington Times & The Daily Princeton to name a few, as shown here [13]. Article needs to be expanded not eliminated. ShoesssS Talk 20:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if such sources do exist then they need to be added to the article and the article rewritten so that all the information is sourced by them. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does need considerable cleanup, but that's not an AFD concern. I did a 5-minute, toss-some-references-in pass, but there's a lot out there for further development. Children's games and similar topics are sometimes challenging to document, but in this case, there's no shortage of material. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't the article need to be rewritten based soley on these sources? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep: per the reliable sources that was found. Schuym1 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep cf following sources http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a793155733~db=all, http://disputatio.com/articles/024-1.pdf , http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/39344/173611526.pdf?sequence=1 Nick Connolly (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because today isn't opposite day Nick Connolly (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I took a look at the sources provided and they barely focus on opposite day. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. One fairly good source [14], lots and lots of weak sources. [15], [16], [17]. It's well-known (100,000+ Ghits) and has "good enough" sources for WP:N. So keep. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the reason i brought this to afd was concerns over wp:v rather than wp:n. none of the information in the article was supported by reliable sources. now some have been added but the majority of the article remains unsourced. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reason to clean up the article, not to delete. If you don't like the sourcing, either add sources, trim the article, or request cleanup. AfD isn't for cleanup. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you except to the point where there are not enough reliable sources to create more than one sentence of sourced information. if something is notable but no reliable sources can be found to support enough information to write an article, even a stub, then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dang, I have to change my vote again. Schuym1 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2008
  • keep the nomination asserted no sources, but it seems from what others have found, did not actually check. I have made a proposal on the AfD talk page to ake a simple procedural change that would help in such cases, which are fairly widespread--I intend no individual criticism. DGG (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
none taken. however i did check. i couldn't find any suitable sources to based an entire article on, and i don't believe the current ones are suitable either. so far all the information that can be sourced would be something along the lines of "opposite day is a game whereby on that day, things have the opposite meaning". this is hardly article material. as i said in my nomination, this was brought to afd 3 years ago, and kept on the assumption that sources would be found. none have. we need secondary reliable sources with enough information about opposite day to source an entire article. if you think these exist then please rewrite the article accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon glancing at this AFD my first instinct was to write "keep per the new sources". However having now looked at these sources, I don't feel it would be right to do so. Am I missing something obvious, or do none of the sources being cited above provide any actual information about Opposite Day? The google news hits (at least, those that I can find) don't appear to discuss "Opposite Day" at all in this context, while most of the remaining sources above, while they use the term "Opposite Day", they don't cover the phenomenon in any detail and simply use it as a descriptive term or to introduce a philosophical concept. For example, the article begins with "Opposite Day is a fictional holiday which is celebrated by many schoolchildren" - but none of the sources cited so far, that I can see, contain anything that supports this. Basically the only information we have from the sources is a brief definition and I fear that unless we find an article actually covering Opposite Day as a "fictional holiday celebrated by many schoolchildren", rather than a philosophical term or a term used to introduce an exercise, we risk ending up with an article that is just full of WP:OR. I'll hold back my !vote for now while I try to find some more informative sources and take a closer look through those cited above in case I'm missing something glaringly obvious. Wiw8 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, the exact verbiage used in the article is an editorial concern. When I did a quick cleanup pass to introduce what was admittedly intended as the first round of refs, I kept the lede phrasing generally intact. Is Opposite Day a "fictional holiday" or a "childhood game"? I'm not sure, and we'll probably have to cull more sources to conclude either way. Either way, we could (and often do) far worse than we would by having an article that defines the activity in broad and basic terms, references it to child development sources (like Preschool Confidential, which devotes a section to it), and addresses its adoption as an educational and test-prep aid. Are we aiming for FA here? Probably not, but children's topics are notoriously under-cited in serious literature. Regardless, my quest for more cites continues... Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What we have currently is a plethora of sources that assert the existence of opposite day. That is sufficient to establish notability of opposite day. Any claims in the article about opposite day do need further sourcing but that is a separate question from whether the article should be deleted. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from wp:v:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information. – Jimmy Wales
Jessi1989 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, remove the information if needed, keep the article. That said, #1 It appears you modified the quote and #2 If we removed every single non-cited fact on wikipedia, we'd lose 90% of it. This isn't pseudo-information. Do you honesty doubt the truth of any of this article? If so, _that_ in particular should be removed. AfD isn't for clean up. Editing is. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. i only removed the last clause of the quote because it was not relevant to this discussion. 2. the fact is, if we would lose 90% of wikipedia then it would be a better encyclopedia, and every article would be written according to at least one of its policies. wikipedia policies are there for a reason and they are non-negotiable. my or your thoughts on the truth of this matter are irrelevant. i did not bring this to afd because of my personal feelings as to whether this topic is true. i brought it to afd because no reliable sources had been found in over three years. nothing should exist on wikipedia without sources for three minutes, let alone three years. i repeat, these are not my personal opinions, these are wikipedia policies which every article should abide by. here's another quote from wp:v although i suggest you read the whole page:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Jessi1989 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there is material here that you are challenging or find likely to be challenged? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes i am challenging any information that is not supported by a reliable secondary source, which is currently the entire article except for this sentence "Because it encourages understanding of antonyms and critical thinking, Opposite Day play has been compared to a children's "philosophy course", employed as an educational aid, and suggested as preparation for standardized testing." Jessi1989 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be trying to make a WP:POINT here. Articles are required to be verifiable, not verified. The article has gone unsourced for three years because the claims it makes are trivial, thus do not require attribution per WP:CS, and no one has complained about the page but policy wanks. Also note that I offered a source for the basic tenants of the page above. --erachima talk 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but you have clearly misunderstood wp:v. all information in every wikipedia article is required to be verified by at least one reliable secondary source. please read wp:v and wp:rs. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read 'em and wrote 'em, what's your point? The relevant policy statement here is from WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (bolding in the original). Additionally, the "I challenge every statement in the article" stance has been repeatedly ruled a disruptive and lawyerly approach to improving articles, as it wastes the community's energy on the correction of technicalities rather than in the performance of higher priority tasks.
In short, if you find an uncited page but do not honestly believe that its claims are inaccurate, then you do not waste our time attempting to delete it, as adding citations to non-exceptional statements is not an urgent fix but rather an eventual improvement to be made when an interested editor decides to do so. If you feel compelled, you may fix the reference problems yourself, or tag the page for needing additional references with {{uncited}} or {{refimprove}}. --erachima talk 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i hardly think i have wasted anyone's time here. this article was tagged for ages and no sources were added for years. because of this afd, editors have helped to find sources and i have re-written the article based on them. hopefully this afd will also encourage editors to find more sources on this subject and improve the article further. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi again, sorry but i didn't see you first paragraph and only responded to the second. i think maybe you didn't have a look at what this article looked like when i took it to afd. i wasn't just challenging some technicalities as you suggest, the entire article was unsourced. i completely agree that if someone disagrees with a few sentences of an article then they should not take it to afd. sorry for the confusion, but what you have interpreted as an "i challenge every statement in the article" stance was actually me saying "nothing in the article was sourced". anyway, i think with the sources that have been found since i brought this to afd an article can be written. after three years with no sources i hardly think that you can say that this afd hasn't benefited the encyclopedia. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i have rewritten the article based on the new sources that have been provided. i think this version can be kept although it is desperate need of more sourced information. please improve the article if you can. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. NAC.Schuym1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McMaster

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

Non-notable, unreferenced. Google hits. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, wait. You're citing low Google hits as an argument against including an athlete from the 70s? That strikes me as a very poor method. The fact that he's an Olympic athlete and set a national record makes it seem likely to me that he's notable, just not easily Googleable. --erachima talk 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Olympic competition would seem to be, prima facie, the highest level of amateur sports. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on guys!! Drew McMaster was an exceptionally important member of both the Scottish and UK 100 metre sprint relay teams of the late 70's and early 80's. For that reason alone he should remain in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven120965 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keep I'm not that up on sports, but it appears he was in something calling itself the olympics, and an edmonton commonwealth games (I don't know if that's the same as the real Commonwealth games. If the Summer Olympics is a real Olympics, that means he's competed at the highest level of his sport, so meets WP:NOTE for sportsmen. Sticky Parkin 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: He was in the Olympics. Schuym1 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (If I had a bit more time I'd procedurally close this; I encourage someone else to!) This AfD was created by an enthusiastic editor who Just Does Not Get It. He is currently banned because whilst he appears to mean well, he hasn't read, or at least has not understood, the policies and is just causing havoc. Clearly, this article is not a candidate for deletion. Ros0709 (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep. He competed in an Olympiad - prima facie evidence of notability. Doesn't matter how long ago or whether he has been forgotten - as per Serpent's Choice he is of note. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per criteria G4 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey of Death

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

Declined speedy because we don't have WP:CRYSTAL as part of the speedy criteria at present. This movie may come out next year, but there isn't much in the way of sources out there, and someone's obviously taking the mickey with its IMDB entry... all in all, WP:CRYSTAL issues, no sources, so delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as being a crystal ball. Also, the IMDb entry isn't very reliable as the movie is going to be released a year from now, lots of time from now to next year to change something. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Galland

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

Non-notable "health writer". He came up with the recipes for a non-notable diet book written by his father. The article has reliable sources but none that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be an indirect advertisement for the diet book. --erachima talk 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I forgot to mention in my nomination that the article was created by and expanded by a number of single-purpose accounts—Legend00 (talk · contribs), Healthyfoodguy0 (talk · contribs), and Fatres (talk · contribs)—all of whom edited only articles related to Jonathan Galland, including his brother Jordan Galland (and his movie). Precious Roy (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fatres (talk · contribs) changed name to StarScreen (talk · contribs), less than an hour after the above comment was posted Precious Roy (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author is notable because 1) meets the notability guidline for co creating a work that has been the subject of numerous articles and that is in major libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC) — Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Galland is not credited as the co-creator. If you look at the book on Amazon, you'll find he's not credited at all on the cover. If you look at the copyright page, his credit (well down the page) is "Recipes by Jonathan Galland". Additionally, at the top of the copyright page there's a disclaimer that starts, "Not the publisher, nor the author, nor the recipe writer...". So his official credit is "recipe writer" and a distinction has been made between that credit and "author". Precious Roy (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the references vaguely cited, like the one in The Ecologist, published by MIT and a very RS, turn out when tracked down to be about his father "Leon Galland" who may well be notable, since that article refers to him as an "nternationally recognised expert in nutrition" [18]. As for the book, his father wrote it, not he. DGG (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Jonathan Galland meets the definition of notabilty provided in Wikipedia, please see; "journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" Clearly, writing over 100 pages of recipes and meal plans qualifies as "a major role in co-creating" a work which ahs been the subject of multiple periodical articles or reviews' Because of his role in co-creating The Fat Resistance Diet, and because the book has been the subject of many articles, he is notable under the definition provided by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Meets the Notability rules provided in Wikipedia Notability(People) for Creative Professionals. Therefore there is no basis for deletion. Unfortunately there seems to be an error by the editors in this case. Please simply follow the definition of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already been asked once not to !vote more than once. Corvus cornixtalk 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, my fault. That comment was posted last but at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom so everything was in chronological order. Precious Roy (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as spamvertising. OhNoitsJamie Talk 08:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog earning

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files... SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is spam. Simple, open and shut spam. --Terrillja (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to George Michael. Notability isn't inherited so a clear redirect (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anselmo Feleppa

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

Fails WP:NOTE and the BIO guidelines, as reflected in the article itself: best known as the lover of George Michael. Article contains no information not already found in the George Michael article, and also contains info boxes relating to George Michael. No real possibility of expansion. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - I agree with the nominator that Anselmo Feleppa relationship with George Michael’s is his only claim to Notability. However, I believe he has generated enough interest in the press, as shown here [19] that a redirect to the George Michael article is more appropriate than a deletion. ShoesssS Talk 19:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd completely support a redirect. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEU Cheering Squad

FEU Cheering Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group of cheerleaders. Parallel articles about the school's cheering groups have been deleted. No reliable sources as to this organization's notability. A minimal paragraph about the squad could be added to the school's article. Corvus cornixtalk 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SANTO GOLD

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

Article about a singer/performer/mail order businessman/informercial star of dubious notability, written in an somewhat advertorial tone. Not to be confused with the indie rock singer Santogold, this Santo Gold (aka Santo V. Rigatuso, Bob Harris) already has a mention on Wikipedia as the producer of Blood Circus, a film-come-infomercial of very minor cult status (Googling on "santo gold" & "blood circus" yields only a few hundred results, few if any of which seem suitable for verifying a biography on this guy). The bottom line is that without the existence of sources of an independent and reliable nature, Santo Gold does not merit an article. H.G. 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your definition of "Dubious Notability". HERE [20] is a plethora of information as to his notability. He was one of the first people to utilize late night infomercials to hock his product. And without him you'd not have the Santogold entry here in Wikipedia.
However bad he is or what he has done, most people over 35 recall this guy, the product, and the movie Blood Circus from those ridiculous commercials.
Why not try to improve the article rather than delete it.--Feddx (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You think geocities is WP:RS?:) He has a fraud conviction, [21] if the article is kept that could be mentioned for WP:NPOV. Sticky Parkin 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(@Feddx, after edit conflict) The Geocities website doesn't attest to notability. On Wikipedia, notability is measured in terms of nontrivial coverage in independent and reliable sources; a self-published website from someone with no special expertise in the area does not count as reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. H.G. 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/speedy- this could actually have been speedied as advertising. The only google mentions for "santo rigatuso" -all 8 of them [22] are for his convictions or fines. The same for the extra five entries for his jewellery business- [23] all 13 0f them are about scandals surrounding them/him, or one which is an advert. Sticky Parkin 20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No.... but I do think legal documents from a court case in US vs Rigatuso are (see here[[24]]).
You cannot deny that he WAS on TV across the nation. I still meet people to this day that saw the commercials in California and Florida. I'm saying I'm sure there is a lot of information out there on this guy (also known as Santo V. Rigatuso, or Bob Harris). The article needs citations and information. So instead of just deleting the article because you don't know who he is, let people who have heard of him they to expand the article.
Just a cursory online search yields: [[25]], [[26]], and a lot more.
Also does anyone know why User:SANTO_GOLD redirects to SANTO_GOLD? And why you cannot get to User:SANTO_GOLD's Talk page?--Feddx (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an editor called 'Santo Gold" worked on the article on his user page, then redirected it to move it to main encyclopedia space when he finished it to his satisfaction. It doesn't matter how many people remember or have heard of him, he's barely mentioned in WP:RS. Blood Circus is slightly more well known, but it has its own article and Santo's not notable independent of it. Sticky Parkin 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many people have heard of him or remember him? Did you really just write that? If there were no humans on the planet (wow wouldn't that be nice) then yes, I'd agree that the only thing that mattered was a paper trail and documentation of all of his works. But if people know who he is, isn't that what makes him notable? People write articles, record documents, update and READ Wikipedia.
As for the movie, I've never seen it, have you? I've seen his infomercials though, as did thousands of others in the 80's. I'd say Santo Gold is more notable than the movie Blood Circus. For his woeful commericals and probably inferior product more than anything else.
The article as it was written sucked to be sure. So instead of improving it, you just want to delete it. I disagree with that philosophy. People do know who he is, there is documentation as to his notability (I've not the time or resources right now to find them, but I've read a few articles over the years about him, so I know they exist). And if you know who he is.... Why shouldn't there be a decent article about this guy.
KEEP but only with a giant overhaul.--Feddx (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen the film, (I'm not a film/indie film person) but I know people who have, and have it in their video collection, people who like films such as Performance. The film is mentioned more in WP:RS than Santo is. Yes I have argued in the past on the AfD for Lauren Harries that people's memories can count, however she'd also got herself mentioned in papers etc, and it counts for more on Wikipedia that WP:RS have considered someone notable. I've not heard of this bloke's infomercials, but then I'm in the UK. If it really is the bloke himself who made this article, I don't think he considered the repercussions, as for WP:NPOV the fate of his businesses/the court cases could be mentioned, and no doubt some dodgy people, or even people who lost money will change the article at some point to include that. There's grounds to delete the article out of compassion for a living person. Sticky Parkin 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best userfy for Feddx to perform his/her overhaul. Subject/article fails the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion, has various "deliberate misinformation and/or unsourced claims" in direct violation of vandalism and WP:BLP concerns. Article as it stands doesn't belong and "beyond repair" as far as I can tell. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an advertisement. However, I must note that at the Blood Circus article, I got into an edit war with someone who was or was employed by Santo Gold, turning it into an advertisement page and an attack page on the indie rock musician Santogold (who Rigatuso had sued for stealing his name). These are the edits made by the user (Jetrac843, note similar syntax to the person who wrote the "Santo Gold" article): here he removes most of the article to make way for an advertisement, here he moves "Blood Circus" to "SANTO GOLD", where he deletes what's left of the original article. Here, I revert the revisions made, and redirect the page back but here he reverts my reversion, and I undo his reversion. I believe that Jetrac843 and SANTO GOLD are either the same editor or someone employed by Rigatuso or possibly Rigatuso himself. I suggest a merge of whatever's salvageable to Blood Circus, redirect SANTO GOLD back to Santogold (who meets WP:MUSIC, as she is a charting musician on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart and the UK Singles Chart, and would be a likely redirect target). Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxfordshire towns by population

List of Oxfordshire towns by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article which is never updated is not useful to an encyclopedia, and can mislead users. Also the towns populations are included in all of the pages articles, so the table is a little pointless. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It might be updated, and anyway the article is a useful central location to compare populations per towns — we've got tons of them for other parts of the world. The only thing this article really needs is a source to demonstrate the date for these populations and to prove their reliability. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline? Re sourcing. Assuming that each article on towns in the list is accurate and sourced, then a source on the subject of List of Oxfordshire towns by population is not required. That said, I agree with Nyttend that a general source relative to the population statistics of Oxfordshire or England for that matter would be useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline? " Oh, how condescending... My point was that the article was last updated on 14, November 2006, so the article is outdated by almost 2 years, and was given an update tag over a month ago, and hasn't received a single useful edit since, so it does not benefit an encyclopedia in any way, which is the important thing, right? Dzhugashvili (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point was merely this. Deletion debates ought to be debates related to the application of WP policies and guidelines, not on reasons ramdomly introduced by editors who have a POV. If there are errors in the article, correct them or at least call attention too them.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies Well, if we wish to discuss policies, then per WP:LIST#Listed items "Lists, ... are ... subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." So, without doing original research, how is this list substantiated, and how is it referenced and verified? How do I know the list of towns is complete, in particular? MadScot (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you could look that up in a secondary source... AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being listcruft at its worst. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems a harmless little article. I presume that the (uncited) source is the 2001 census, the latest to be conducted. Since none has been conducted since, there is no WP:RS on subsequent population. I expect that Oxfordshire County Council employs a statistician to make estimates of subsequent changes, but they will only be estimates. It would be useful if data could be added (in further columns) for the population in ealrier censuses. It will surprise some people that (despite housebuilding) the population of many places varies little between censuses: we are merely spread out more thinly. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Its just a table, it can be slotted into the Oxfordshire article, then improved by making it sortable, and citing the source. MortimerCat (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Clearly encyclopedic and verifiable subject matter. AndyJones (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lopez

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

Member of an unremarkable football (soccer) team playing in an unremarkable league. Does not meet WP:FOOTBALL George The Dragon (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I have no way of knowing whether it falls under G4 as I don't know if this Daniel Lopez is the same as the previous one! George The Dragon (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not, Jimbo, not the same. You can see the version that went to AfD before here as it was userfied. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Poloni

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

Member of an unremarkable football (soccer) team playing in an unremarkable league. Does not meet WP:FOOTBALL George The Dragon (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Possible conflict of interest with the page's creator User:SebastianPoloni. --Jimbo[online] 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vanity page EP 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyōheki

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

Unnotable fictional weapon/item from a short set of chapters/episodes from the Inuyasha series. No real world notability. Its relevance to the story is already covered in the episode and chapter summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Don't need an article on a one-off plot object. --erachima talk 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete InuYashacruft. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable plot device. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 13 (band)

AfDs for this article:
Episode 13 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. Written like an advertisement for the band. They have released two studio albums but only one of which was on raven records. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was also deleted before, but I don't know how much of it was re-creation of deleted material. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Esterson

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

Subject fails WP:PROF, has written one book, cited 32 times in Google Scholar (GS h-index = 3). This BLP was created by a user who has a running conflict (both on and off wiki) with User:Esterson (AN/I thread). The subject of the biography has expressed the wish that the article be deleted and claims to fail WP:N and WP:PROF "the fact remains that I have never had an academic position, have very few publications to my name, and have virtually no public profile (nor eminence)" (here).. I could imagine that someone might argue that his web site and that his work has been cited at all by Freud scholars amounts to notability, but I think these clearly fail WP:PROF based on my past experiences at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it will probably be helpful for American editors to know that "colleges" in the UK are secondary educational institutions -- the last two years of high school, basically -- rather than universities. I'm going to give this nomination some more attention tomorrow; for the moment, I've removed a large amount of tedious and unencyclopedic detail. I have also placed a COI warning for this article on User:Skoojal's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Judging by the full version, and some extensive searching, I think that by our usual standard for WP:PROF, there does not seem to be sufficient published work for notability as a researcher. With regard to general public notability, I don't see it either. Writing a long comment about a PBS program does not make one notable, even if it gets printed--no matter how true it may be. Maric's role in Einstein's work is an important scientific controversy, but his role in it is very minor. The significant contributions to that historical inquiry have been made by others. And certainly so in relation to Freud's theories. That a subject doesn't want an article is in my view not a strong reason for deletion. But in this case the subject seems correct that he isn't notable. Considering the information given above, I suggest a Rapid delete, and a courtesy blanking of the Afd DGG (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for several reasons, including lack of reliable independent sources, borderline attack and the honouring of subject preference in marginal WP:BLPs. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Dickerson

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

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable washed up actor. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep. George Dickerson is a poet and actor of international recognition. He's been published in The Best American Short Stories, acted in David Lynch's 1986 film Blue Velvet, and has numerous other credentials which qualify under WP:BIO guidelines. Yes, the article needs more references from additional sources. But just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the failure to meet WP:BIO guidelines but I see no need to make personal attacks, as the nominator has done. RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article makes several strong claims to notability. He was indeed a literarature critic for Time, and he had an important role in the film Blue Velvet. He also seems to have a profile in Contemporary Theater, Film, and Television that could confirm other details, although we can only get a snippet of it from Google Books. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Well known actor, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthStory
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alabamaboy08
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dayewalker
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StevenEdmondson
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steven_J._Anderson
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tmwns

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The movie career seems sufficient. I do however think it essential to have an additional source besides the interview. DGG (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep basically because of the personal attacks going back and forth. Keep the article but, find reliable 3rd party sources for the information and include them in the article. If the only source is going to be the interview than better to delete it now and save us all the agro of the tit for tat accusations. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other reliable sources, from Contemporary Theatre, Film, and Television and the NY Times, have now been added to this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Emanuel

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

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This author has no verifiable sources outside of Schneider's page. Schneider promotes only himself, and is fond of hoaxes. This writer may be Schneider's pseudonym. A hoax. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Emanuel is a poet of international recognition. Just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable. The article has plenty of reliable sources to support this notability. I mean, this subjects papers are in the f'in Library of Congress. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI have fixed the title of the AFD discussion, as the template was not completed correctly. Horologium (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no idea who this "Schneider" is, but Emanuel is a real poet of real importance. Here's one source to start with. You'll find more under James A. Emanuel. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I once heard a radio interview between Schneider and Emanuel, and the two voices were clearly different. He’s been interviewed by NPR, I believe, and in France, he has a strong following, so I vote keep. Shukichisanzawa (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP: Well known writer--many independent sources, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthStory
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alabamaboy08
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dayewalker
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StevenEdmondson
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steven_J._Anderson
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tmwns

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The rant above is enough to convince me that there is no substance here. There is precious little in the way of independent sourcing, and we have admission of block-evading sockpuppetry. Horologium (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking !vote; I missed Zagalejo's link when I posted, and that, along with the rationales from DGG, Jasynnash2 and Eddie.willers is enough. The sockpuppetry and screedy sniveling don't help matters, though. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you miss my comment, or is what I have provided not good enough? Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The anthology he edited is published by the well known mainstream publisher Free Press, & is in over 1500 US & Canadian libraries, according to worldCat [28]. His book on Langston Hughes is in the standard Twayne's United States authors series, indicating him to be recognized as an authority in the subject. (and is in even more libraries). an essay of his on Hughes has been reprinted in "Langston Hughes: Black genius; a critical evaluation," one of a series of standard anthologies for students published by the College Language Association, fully indicating academic acceptance as a critic. His major poetry is in more than 200 libraries, not bad for a contemporary poet. And his work is in the standard poetry anthologies The best American poetry, 2005 by Paul Muldoon and The Pushcart prize 2001 XXV : best of the small presses and also XX for 1996. Enough for notability as a poet. That his work may have been also praised by an eccentric critic is no reason for exclusion. Amazing what a search in a library catalog can determine, as compared to unsupported rhetoric. DGG (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite the tit for tat. He has enough mentionhere to allow improvements to the article and its references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Sock puppetry and other assorted misdeeds aside, James Emanuel is of sufficient note to merit 10 entries at the [Library Of Congress]. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that's not a sufficient reason by itself. Writing any number of insignificant books does not make a person notable. The point here is that some of the works are significant. DGG (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree. Inclusion in national libraries, such as LoC or the British Library, IMHO, is evidence of notability no matter how 'insignificant' the tome. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GL1TCHG0R3

GL1TCHG0R3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The band is not notable enough to have an article on them. Google search on both GL1TCHG0R3 and Glitchgore do not return any meaningful results. Shovon (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Jacobson

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

Does not meet criteria for notability, no secondary sources cited; non neutral point of view Shelly No (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article has been previously nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. It has also been previously tagged for non-neutral point of view. The original editor claims to have written it "with" the subject. It has the feel of a resume or advertisement. All external links point to the subject's web site. Subject's graduate thesis is cited as a publication. Google searches turn up some primary sources and a few local newspapers. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is claimed as his major work is present in only two libraries, according to WorldCat. DGG (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main book listed is a self-publication and the other is his portfolio. No independent sources verifying his notability found, just self-promotion websites and blogs. Could find no evidence for him being a 'social critic'. Nothing notable about his academic acheivements.Jenafalt (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for the reasons cited: non-notable subject and indications of conflict-of-interest. --Lockley (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino Krew

San Bernardino Krew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is full of original research and was created and maintained by the team's manager. Article passess CSD A7 and a {{prod|concern = No [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] found to [[WP:V|verify]] [[WP:NOTABLE|notability]].}} was removed without addressing the underlying reason. Fails notability guidelines. —  X  S  G  16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I correct myself: the article was created by a player on the team, and likely the son of the team's manager. —  X  S  G  16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real notability outside its own pitch. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Plays in a non-notable league, and has to claim to notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. The article contains a mission statement, but no third-party source stating "mission accomplished". -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete massively non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Tours

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

This article was nominated for deletion before, but still does not assert much notability. The only sources are from a local paper. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the ref's provided, and additional ghits beyond blurbs & blogs. ArakunemTalk 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only three months since it was last put up for deletion (by myself). There are references, and the article was improved (just) since it was nominated last time around. The lack of any prior discussion on the talk page weakens the argument for this being removed. Olana North (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as I argued in the previous AfD). The article meets the general notability guideline standard of receiving coverage in independent reliable sources—it does not need to "assert" something beyond that. Local coverage is fine, as long as it is independent. The article by Vicky Anderson is an article entirely about this company, and there is a fair amount of verifiable info that can still be added from that. In addition to the articles in the Liverpool Daily Post, there is also coverage in the Liverpool Echo and in The Railway Magazine (see this Google News search.) Unfortunately I do not have access to the full text of the last one, so I am not sure how extensive that coverage is. Anyway, there's enough to meet WP:GNG, though it would be nice to have more. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notability is confirmed via WP:RS, though admittedly this is a marginal case. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article passed with a keep decision only a couple of months ago and that decision should stand for now. Articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time before a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Davis

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDB profile shows no named roles. PROD declined previously. RayAYang (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. As an aside, prod was removed by anonymous IP that edited the article in the same vein as the article's creator, possibly the article's subject. --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. Possibly an autobiography, but either way does not satisfy the WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:COI violation of WP:AUTO (see diff). Even the one source given is a dead link. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent (Collateral)

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

Completely unnotable fictional character from a single film. Article is almost completely a repeat of the actual Collateral (film) article, with some OR and trivia added in. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is non-notable fancruft. The character does not appear in multiple works to warrant an article of his own. I searched Google for reliable, independent coverage of the subject in mainstream media but was unable to find anything. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely an OR-fest, particularly in the "personality" section. umrguy42 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge to Collateral or Tom Cruise. No matter that the unsourced article is almost longer than the film, the character of "Vincent" has no notability outside that universe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can find 20 references like this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article's focus is on Tom Cruise, not his character. It does nothing to alleviate concerns of Vincent's notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respects Peregrine Fisher, SWik78 is correct. Thos articles are terrific about Cruise and his carreer and only make passing references about the Vincent character. There is nothing even closely resembling the in-depth character anysis of the Wiki article. I have modified my merge accordingly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One-off character, article consists entirely of PLOT and OR, both of which it really shouldn't be. – sgeureka t•c 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Mexico

1884 in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format. Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment see Category:19th century years by country for many, many, many other examples (not just Mexico). Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [29] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to delete them, then you should delete everything in Category:Years_by_country. Don't just pick on Mexico; pick on the US and the UK, too. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Humanic

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

16-year-old dirt track race car driver. Sources are cited, but none are independent or reliable, and it doesn't appear to me that he is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A lot of apparent effort expended on the entry, but doesn't appear to be notable as verified by reliable third party sources. A Lexis-Nexis Academic database search for "Jackson Humanic" for the last 10 years (Major US and World Pubs; News Wire Services; TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts) results on zero, zilch, nada hits. Not notable yet. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article volume doesn't confer notability. You need to win more (or at least wangle a drive for a major team) before you're notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions

List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article consists of three sentences about the conventions, and a list showing the title of each year's convention. The titles are rather generic and don't really provide any insight (as far as I can tell) into how one year's convention differed from the next. The info is unsourced. On August 8, I added notability, wikify and orphan tags; on September 3 (when there had been no improvement) I prodded; on September 8 the prod was removed and a proposal was made to merge the content into Jehovah's Witnesses or History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The merge discussion is here, but it hasn't been conclusive (although I don't think anyone has spoken in favor of merging). Propaniac (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unless the list makes note of conventions that according to JW folklore are imagined to correlate to verses from the book of Revelation (See Revelation - It's Grand Climax at Hand), or any that were accompanied by significant events in opposition, such as bomb threats etc (if any such events exist). If kept, the article should be linked to, but not merged into Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and/or History of Jehovah's Witnesses. In any case, conventions that have no special significance should probably be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAs it is, the article has very little, if any, utility. No context is provided to demonstrate notability. Were there to be so much as sourced paragraphs detailing each convention, the article might be of use. However, Propaniac has demonstrated that there is no effort to improve the article to a useful state. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No information, no value. LTSally (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- these convenions consist of a text prepared centrally being read to those attending. Accordingly, this article is the equivalent of a list of book titles. The article might be very useful if it exposed how the Jehovah's Witnesses change their beliefs every decade or so, so that the articles provided a paragraph summarising what was taught at each convention, something that would probably surprise many current Witnesses. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only a small number of talks at their conventions are 'script talks' that are prepared centrally to be read verbatim. It is therefore not strictly analogous to a list of books. It is a valid point though, that it might be worth retaining mention of conventions at which significant changes in doctrine have been made, though this could probably be achieved in the History article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep history, merge, and lock redirect but will accept what looks like a consensus to delete. I am the one who deprodded it in favor of a merge. I have already copied the links to the video and audio to History of Jehovah's Witnesses#External links, so there won't be any great harm done if this is deleted. If someone wants to restore this information in a well-sourced manner in the appropriate section of the appropriate article, they can probably find what they need in official publications. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator withdrawal.[30] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I put up a speedy deletion notice before for lack of context but someone took it down. I see he put up an expansion tag, but I think that it's reasonable to expect that anyone who decides to post an article should at the very least be prepared to have a sentence that explains what the topic is. Three hours after its creation this article still lacks any explanation of what vaporized hydrogen peroxide is, and has nothing more to say about than that it's become more popular for some particular purpose than it used to be. Largo Plazo (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "He" (me!) didn't put up an expansion tag, he merely removed the speedy (according to policy, as a non-concerned editor). The original author had put the hangon up (again, according to policy). Yet again we see an over-hasty attempt to delete a brand new (3 minutes old!) article on an interesting topic, simply because the deletionist can't wait for an editor to finish working on it. I'd also note (entirely without prejudice) that the creator is a wikinewbie who is likely to be unaware of the risks to new articles, and of the necessity of working on them out of main article space first to guard againt this risk. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an interesting topic and I look forward to the creator expanding the article. I have no intention of expanding it myself immediately, as I'd regard that as a rude intrusion onto someone else's efforts. However if nothing happens before the 5 day Clock o'Doom expires and this article has to be deleted in a hurry lest the world ends, then I'll expand it to a defensible state at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and notable topic. Premature atttempt to delete an article during creation, when the AfD proposer speedied it after 3 minutes. Obviously needs expansion, but I have every faith that the creator intends to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quick google search returns many references to VHP as a new method of sterilization of large volume enclosures, including its ability to disinfect anthrax spores from buildings. Not the best start to the article, but that's reason to improve it, given the available sources. ArakunemTalk 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion proposed. If one wants to get in to content discussions, then a merge to hydrogen peroxide could be appropriate. The creator added a sentence to Hydrogen peroxide#Industrial applications which could be improved and Vaporized hydrogen peroxide redirected there or, if there is lots to say, this article can be expanded as far as she or anyone else wants. Its clearly a very common application of hydrogen peroxide and I believe this was rushed and a tad bitey. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fairly uncommon application of hydrogen peroxide, hence interesting as it's obviously a rapidly growing field of application. As the context of its use is currently topical, then I see this as entirely justified as a separate article (as is High Test Peroxide, for similar reasons). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess our definitions of common-place differ. There's a large amount of literature going back to at least the early nineties on it. Nonetheless, we agree its clearly notable and worthy of an article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to distinguish between a topic worth of an article and an article that ought to be on Wikipedia. I could put up all kinds of articles on noteworthy topics but with inappropriate content, and I would expect the result to be deletion until such time as someone comes back and recreates them with appropriate content. If I hadn't posted these articles, life would go on until someone else created them (or I created them with real content); likewise, no harm is caused by deleting the articles until someone has good content for them. (Recreating an article isn't a hardship!) Newbies can be given helpful information such as WP:First article that will help them prepare some decent starter content that they can come back with to try again. (I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit.) Meanwhile, this keeps Wikipedia clear of all the useless articles that people don't come back to flesh out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't offer any help to the new article creator, did you? Instead you worked pretty hard to delete their first article, with all possible haste. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was the acknowledgment "I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit" not clear? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe present article is less than an adequate encyclopedic treatment, looking at only one very specific use of the product and references are lacking. Previous commentors claim there are references about this substance and its uses. Please, someone with knowedge of chemistry or of sterilization procedures, go right ahead and improve the article. As it stands, I would recommend a merge to Hydrogen peroxide as a subsection until there is sufficient content to justify an article. As for the AFD, when the topic is clearly not a hoax or vandalism or nonsense, as a Google search would show [31] in 10 seconds, [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , or a Google News Archive search [38] , or a Google Book Search [39] , tagging the article as being in need of expansion is a better course than nominating it for deletion. Three hours is hardly an extreme duration for leaving a new stub article in Wikipedia. Some drawbacks of the process are discussed at[40]. One book which gives more than a snippet view and has substantial discussion is [41]. If someone familiar with the area would add these or equivalnet refs and make the coverage more comprehensive it could be a fine article. Edison (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Go right ahead and improve it". I think we've bitten the creator quite enough for one day. What's the hurry? Let them get on with it. Is Wikipedia in some way damaged by the existence of a non-controversial, appropriate, but unfinished article that clearly has a large audience alredy watching it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just get rid of speedy deletion altogether for no content, little or no context, no evidence given of notability, and blatant advertising, on the grounds that someone will come along and fix them in a trice? There's a good reason for these provisions. As I said earlier, it is hardly too much to ask for it to have occurred to the person creating an article to have something to say to define the topic and establish context; is a person damaged by that expectation? And now, six hours later, this article's author, the individual who you were confident was just on the verge of providing all this context, is nowhere to be seen. So I don't think it was a matter of me cutting him off before he'd had three minutes to fix the problem on his own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I doubt we'll ever see the article's creator ever again. After all, if this sort of reception doesn't discourage them, I don't know what would. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, on the issue of contacting the person and giving a fair chance first. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaporize What? I don't know how this could be improved. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a premature deletion nomination. Since when do we delete an article not finished the same day? Edison has provided sufficient references, so the article is a valid stub, and not likely to be deleted when finished. The value of a merge can be later discussed on the talk page after the article is written. I suggest the nom withdraw this, as a sign of AGF in new editors. (I note that when the speedy was placed, the author had a totally irrelevant reference, apparently a mistaken cut and paste--that does go far to justify the original doubt about it; but it was quickly corrected to an appropriate ref.). DGG (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been intrigued by the number of people whose response is directed at something other than the basis originally given for the deletion request. It was never a question of whether the article was finished. It was a question of whether the article fulfills the reasonably established minimum purpose of having article, which is to say what its topic is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - I don't really see need for this to have its own article, unless there is a lot more detail to go into, and this use for hydrogen peroxide is already mentioned under industrial uses in the main article on it, though seriously, isn't noming the article only 3 minutes after its creation a little much? 204.83.242.149 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in) Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT :: May I take it, from this discussion, that it would now be within Wiki-process to block-nominate articles before they are created, on the basis that we either do not like the subject, or do not think it worthy of Wiki-ing ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
What i was meaning was "in my (non-chemist) opinion, there is not likely enough to this topic to warrant its own article and it should go in the main article" and added "don't you think you're nominating this in an awful hurry?"Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Grandmartin11, I don't think that's what they meant (or far stronger than they meant anyway). This is a notable topic, but I only know that from outside knowledge, not from the current article. As it stands, it doesn't make an adequate case for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The topic is probably notable and may support an article-length treatment of its own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hydrogen peroxide. The substance in gas phase is not really different in how it behaves in solution. Anything that is unique about this phase can probably be described in a handful of sentences. --Polaron | Talk 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went and expanded the article to establish notability. Please re-evaluate this AfD. BTW, for Andy: I didn't want to wait the 5 days, as I think it would be a nice welcome to the original author to get a DYK credit for creating the article. Thoughts? ArakunemTalk 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offer to withdraw motion The article's great now. Thanks, Arakunem. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hydrogen peroxide article is long as it is. Narayanese (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not cleanup. And even the first version of the article provided useful information about what VHP is and what it is used for. --Itub (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoblar

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

Fails WP:SOURCES, has no real-world context and fails WP:OR / WP:SYN -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rambler Mania

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

promotional article about non-notable group which has been speedied repeated for a number of reaons A7 and G11 (off the top of my head) but, is being constantly recreated without addressing the issues. Although, I consider this a procedural nom I'm "voting" speedy delete for either of the above reasons and add a healthy dose of salt. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - non-notable supporters group, fails CSD A7 CultureDrone (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and protect per nom. Mystache (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as empty article. ... discospinster talk 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie chirico

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

Tagged for speedy G3, removed by another user, so I'm bringing to AfD. Incoherent nonsense and obvious vandalism. gnfnrf (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the article was deleted as I created the AfD, so Twinkle recreated the article with just the AfD notice. This is awkward. gnfnrf (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete current article for content per my tag then salt against recreation. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Empty article. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania. ffm 15:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Affairs Association (IAA) of the University of Pennsylvania

International Affairs Association (IAA) of the University of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Student group page fails to assert notability via reliable sources. Mystache (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, 2x speedy req'd and de-proded by author. Mystache (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info. but remove the wikipedia-referred claims. We66er (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation fillers

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

Rambling personal essay, part original research, part 'How to' guide. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Personal essay, not encyclopedic. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:SNOW. While the article is OR, the concept certainly does exist. I'm not an expert on sociolinguistics, but I suspect it may be relevant therein. At best, I could see this going as a merge/redirect, if the topic isnt a neologism. Mystache (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the following WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:SNOW Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Phatic, which already contains a fair assessment of scholarly thought on this subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I don't see what can be merged from this article, as none of the info in the article is sourced. (Whoops, for some reason I mis-read "Re-direct" as "Merge". I am for a re-direct) This article is, as Dawn Bard put it, a "Personal essay, not encyclopedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by JEdgarFreeman (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Phatic or delete as encyclopedic. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Redirect per AlexTiefling as Phatic clearly means the same thing but is, it would seem, the more accepted term. I agree with JEdgarFreeman that there's nothing to merge, but that doesn't preclude a redirect. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definetly delete; not encyclopedic. Maybe redirect it. abf /talk to me/ 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically... delete The author wants to give advice on how to be "a good conversationalist". Yikes. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator's intent isn't a problem if the topic is notable. Now, I think the topic is notable - the expression 'conversation filler' is reasonably widely used - but, as noted above, there's a more precise, technical term for it which already has a reasonably decent article. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MC Magazine

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

I speedied this article under G11 but the creator advised me that he was unconnected with the publication. In the interest of WP:AGF, I have undeleted the article and am listing it here instead. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete you don't have to be "connected" to something for the article about to be spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA Unicenter Service Desk

CA Unicenter Service Desk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available for this topic that is independent of CA Unicenter Service Desk. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). -- Suntag ☼ 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Hustlenomics. ffm 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Poppin'

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

Fails WP:MUSIC as the single did not chart, and won no awards. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You say it didn't chart, yet a table stating that it did was already in the article before you AfD'd it, and a 10sec search at Billboard.com confirmed the fact. [42], [43]. Meets notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to album. Chart singles aren't inherently notable, and I see nothing that makes this a notable song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. You didn't need to take this to AfD, by the way. --erachima talk 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this was a botched nomination, but although the subject of the article is clearly notable per WP:Music, it does not have enough content currently to warrant a separate article. Merge back to artist or album unless and until section gets too big and warrants a separate article. This would not have required an AfD, and use of AfD to force editing decisions is to be discouraged. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Anthem

San Francisco Anthem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Requires substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources; none provided, none found Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Hassan

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE: no evidence that he has played any first-team games. PROD template was removed without explanation by the user who created the article. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniIRC

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

Is this notable? Is this advertising? Is the list of links into various chatrooms on this IRC services appropriate? Largo Plazo (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Family Feud around the world. ffm 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 mexicanos dijeron

100 mexicanos dijeron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This cancelled TV show is basically Family Feud in spanish, there is no reason to host several articles to cover the same topic. RUL3R (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way the nominator phrases the argument, it sounds as if this is the Family Feud either dubbed or translated into Spanish. The show listed here is based upon the Family Feud, in terms of gamestyle, but was it's not "Family Feud in spanish", being its own show with production, advertising, hosts, and all those other accompaniments for a television production. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I gave the wrong impression, and I am sorry for that. Bue still, there is an article already regarding Family Feud around the world, so, I still see no point on hosting this article. RUL3R (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, malformatted afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Wyoming, Delaware

Camden_Wyoming,_Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
  1. REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camden Wyoming, Delaware and Camden-Wyoming, Delaware

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dough4872 (talk • contribs) 2008/09/21 16:22:48

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esmeralda Sánchez de Moncada

Esmeralda Sánchez de Moncada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete telenovelacruft. JuJube (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing essential to merge. If this was to be recreated, it would need to look totally different. – sgeureka t•c 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close after converting to a redirect. The nominator should have been bold and just done this.. Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of materials

Mechanics_of_materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I have nominated this page for deletion as i had added a merge tag few months ago but no editor had taken interest in either improving or merging the article, so i merged the article to strength of materials and nominated the page for deletion. Kalivd (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge for GFDL compliance. (If the history has already been merged, then no objection.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At your next AfD listing, do not blank the page replacing it with a reason to delete it. Also, if no one declines, you are welcome to be bold and perform the merge yourself. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Strength of materials as all merged information is there. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NuSoft Solutions

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

WP:PSTS ScratzNutz (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article is unsourced, and even its claims don't satisfy notability. Furthermore, it is defunct, and so there's no reason to expect the article to get any better or more notable. Avram (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Can we have a per-se rule that software consulting businesses are not notable, ever? Unacceptable promotional prose: NuSoft Solutions grew from an up-and-coming technology company to one of the Midwest's leading Microsoft consulting firms. Even if some case could be made for it, it would be better to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of Democracy Project

Origins of Democracy Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google has never heard of this, and neither have I. I cannot find coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and suspect there is none. If I am mistaken and there are, I will gladly withdraw this nomination and write the article myself, while chewing my hat in preparation for digestion. the skomorokh 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just ran a yahoo search of my own, and could not find any references to such a "project" or "foundation" that didn't link back to an older version of this very article. Tracking down the citations, it seems to be a collection of sources with nothing in common, and have been brought together by a single, anonymous editor. --Cast (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I ran the following online searches:
    1. searched Google for "origins of democracy project" (all in quotes), and got 14 hits, each of which either was a Wikipedia mirror or had no substantive content.
    2. searched Google for "origins of democracy" project, and got 95200 hits.
    3. The wiki article says that according to The Black Book of Communism, the "Origins of Democracy Project rejects Marxism as a catastrophically counterproductive doctrine." I searched Google Books for "Black Book of Communism" "origins of democracy" and was referred to the book Democracy's Good Name; however, when I add the word project (thus forming the query "Black Book of Communism" "origins of democracy" project in Google Books), I got no hits. I then searched for the string "Black Book of Communism" to verify that this book is indexed, but it appears that even though Google recognizes the title of the book, no preview is available. If the absence of a preview means that Google has not indexed the text of the book, one would need a hardcopy to determine whether the Origins of Democracy Project is mentioned in the book or not. A hardcopy of this book is readily available, and if this AfD remains open for a few more days I might check and see if the Origins of Democracy Project is mentioned in the book's index or not.
    4. The wiki article also says that the Origins of Democracy Project is mentioned in Dark Ages America. I searched in Google Books for "Dark Ages America" "Origins of Democracy" and got no hits. I then searched for "Dark Ages America" to verify that the book is indexed, but it seems that Google recognizes only the title of the book, with no preview available. If the absence of a preview means that Google has not indexed the text of the book, one would need a hardcopy to determine whether the Origins of Democracy Project is mentioned in the book or not.
    5. A search of Google Scholar for "origins of democracy" project yields 512 hits.
    6. A search of Google Scholar for "Origins of Democracy Project" yields no hits.
    7. Finally, a search of Google Books for "Origins of Democracy Project" yields no hits.
I am inclined to believe that there may be a project that studies the origins of democracy and fits the description in the article, but I do not believe it likely that a notable academic project exists with that exact name. Bwrs (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or something two friends made up at school one day. Wikipedia is not the place to start a social studies project. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bondage (BDSM). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric bondage

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

Non-notable bondage term, no references. No doubt this exists but it doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod, however there doesn't appear to me to be content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Bondage (BDSM), where the subject is briefly mentioned in a list. Might be a likely search term and candidate for future expansion. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested by Reinoutr. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as it was sugegsted above. The article on its own is not notable. abf /talk to me/ 17:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs to show it satisfies notability and verifiability requirements. A Google search shows some hits at "how-to do bondage" sites which do not appear to constitute reliable and independent sources. A redirect might be appropriate, but nothing here to merge. Edison (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested above. --Lockley (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bondage (BDSM) as suggested above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the time being . there is certainly enough material on the web for an article, though it is not in what would usually be call RSs. Some of this may be published more conventionally, but none of the people here seem to have done the research to find them. In practice, until someone is interested in the article, the best solution is to merge, with a redirect, and without prejudice to reconstruction when someone cares to develop proper content. . DGG (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was BOLDly merged to Elections in Italy. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graph of Italian general elections

Graph of Italian general elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is merely a map of election results quickly copied and pasted from an Italian Wikipedia article. It makes obviously no sense to leave it as a stand-alone article, and personally I think it makes no sense as well to merge it into another article, unless it is translated into English and uploaded to Commons into a proper format, such as SVG for instance. A WP:PROD was contested under the claim it is an imagemap, however there's no imagemap at all who stands as an article of its own, they are all inserted into a more significant content (see Category:Wikipedia imagemaps), and, again, this content can be more easily covered as a SVG drawing. Angelo (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SOFIXIT. There are a large number of ways that graph could be used to serve our readers. Category:General elections in Italy currently lacks a main article, for instance, so you could create Italian general elections or List of Italian general elections and include the imagemap there. If it needs translated, or its format converted, or uploading to commons, then do that, or ask someone. It probably would have taken less time to move the page to the list title and write it a stub intro than you spent filing this AfD on it, and certainly less time than you've spent attempting to prod the thing.
    I'm sorry if I seem excessively blunt here, but this simply isn't an issue for AfD, it's an issue for editing. I grow quite tired of people nominating pages for deletion on the basis of having easily repairable flaws, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a wiki is. --erachima talk 08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're talking about the notability of an article with just that graph. Do you think that graph is notable enough to have its own article? I think no. These contents can be easily recovered and merged into another article in the future, that's not the issue actually. --Angelo (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the graph isn't a notable subject, but it's a significantly useful collection of data, and bringing it up for deletion is the wrong way to go about this. --erachima talk 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've merged the graph into Elections in Italy and redirected the page. Since the remaining complaints raised (the image being untranslated) fall outside the purview of AfD, I think we can consider this resolved. --erachima talk 09:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ffm 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Step (Kaou Mizui manga)

Slow Step (Kaou Mizui manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is pretty much the definition of a non-notable subject. The article is on a single-volume hentai compilation, it is not by a notable author, it has never been published outside of Japan, and there's nothing to say about it beyond basic bibliographic information. I've checked for sources, none exist, and the article was originally created for the sake of disambiguation with another series with a similar title (it now has a better hatnote, so this is unnecessary). The page does not technically meet any WP:CSD, however. I've listed it here rather than via proposed deletion as I believe it has a good chance of being WP:SNOWed. --erachima talk 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My search fu finds no sign that this meets any criteria of WP:BK. I did get a hint that there may be a Chinese language edition, but not enough of one that I'm confident of it, and certainly nothing reliable enough to count it as verified -- and even if true, it'd be only one other publisher outside of Japan. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching out the author's Japanese name (瑞井鹿央) yields some possibly-useful results if you really wanted to make an article about him and his stuff, since one of his later compilations was a best-selling H manga and he's apparently done some visual novels and whatnot. I'm personally not big on writing pages just because we can though, and the lack of coverage we have of any related topics (i.e. Comic Rin, or the publisher, or pretty much anything else a page on the guy could conceivably be linked from) means we'd basically just be tossing an orphaned page into the database for no reason. --erachima talk 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Furthermore, this issue has been covered elsewhere, such as at Sarah Palin, and the investigation is still in progress. There will be no prejudice towards its future recreation if there are any major noteworthy developments that supersedes the overall scope of Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: It has been userified per request. seicer | talk | contribs 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack

Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This incident is being used to make attacks on the father of the person who is being investigated by the FBI, and has nothing to do with the father. The article was created by a user who was edit warring to include the information in the father's article, but was reverted and got a 3RR warning. Corvus cornixtalk 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The incident is already given its appropriate weight and detail at Sarah Palin and 4chan, and the complicated and inaccurate spelling of the page title here makes redirection non-productive. With regard to including information in the article on the (presumed) hacker's father, I don't think it would be problematic if Mike Kernell actually had a detailed article, but you are correct that as it stands it would give the incident severe undue weight. --erachima talk 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kernell had nothing whatsoever to do with it. His SON did. The extent this is mentioned in Kernell's bio should be a one-liner link to this article. If Kernell's son were notable (beyond this one incident), it would make sense to include it in an article about the son ... but including it in an article about the father would be like turning George HW Bush's bio into an article about George W Bush's presidency. --B (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point precisely. The incident has only a minor connection to Mike Kernell so it should make up only a minor portion of his article, which right now would not be the case due to the lack of any other real info about the guy. --erachima talk 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But it needs to go in the Mike Kernell article, as this is probably the only time Mike Kernell has made the national news, and is probably the only thing anyone outside of Tennessee knows about him. If someone feels it adds undue weight, then they can ADD to the Kernell article rather than delete this ref. Politics n such (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and contextualize. There seems to be plenty of sources for this and the article is how many hours old? The US elections are at a fevered pitch with all manner of nonsense getting overblown. This is a promising article about the intersection of hackers and politics with a guarantee that like everything else during the elections it will be examined in infinite detail and reported in all major media. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, possible WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, etc. Wikipedia is not here to press any agenda or to report the news. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, while the investigation is in progress. Not everybody reads the news all the time, and if this were somehow to end up in court, I would not want any juror to have first heard about it on Wikipedia. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Wikileaks, where the subject is briefly mentioned. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered in the main biographical article on Palin (no opinion on the father article) and nothing to suggest this has lasting notability. If this turns out to be the Watergate of the 21st century, then let's revisit it later. I agree the title used isn't condusive to a redirect. Someone wanting info will go to Palin's article first. I also have concerns from a WP:BLP perspective here. 23skidoo (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Corvus that this isn't much more than an attack page on the father of the perpetrator, disguised as an article about computer security. While the incident itself will probably be noted in future stories about identity theft, this prank will never become a "-gate" for anyone. Since this incident is covered elsewhere, and since it's unlikely that "E-Mail-Hack" will ever be used as as a redirect, delete. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Sarah Palin e-mail hacking incident - this is a pretty serious event in the campaign and, from a BLP standpoint, keeps Mike Kernell from being nothing but a coatrack about his son's alleged offense. The title, though, is not all that spectacular. --B (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious event in what campaign? Not in the Presidential campaign. Corvus cornixtalk 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a content fork and per WP:NOT#NEWS. Relevant, encyclopedic info can go in the Presidential campaign article once it's clear exactly what is going on. If this article is kept, it will be yet another trouble spot requiring constant vigilance (it's already a BLP disaster area); this is not a reason to delete it per se, but I'd ask all contributors here to watchlist the page and help with BLP issues if it's kept. MastCell Talk 15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK, and possibly WP:BLP. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. abf /talk to me/ 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided This is discussed in the Sarah Palin article. Not discussed there is press criticism [44] by the Washington Post, New York Times and CNET News of her use of a low-security non-government email for state business, which was said not to be in accord with the applicable state law. If her email use was to keep official correspondence outside legally mandated channels, and there were consequences, or if some scandalous email were revealed which affected the campaign, or if this incident led to major email providers going beyond hackable password recovery questions of zipcode, birthdate and where she met her husband, all widely available info, then this incident might deserve a stand-alone article. It may be too soon to evaluate the notability of this event. Perhaps merge now to the Palin article with no barrier against creating a stand-alone article in the future. Edison (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Come Dancing (Series 5) Weekly Scores

Strictly Come Dancing (Series 5) Weekly Scores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think the information of this page is really notable enough for an arcticle on its own. This page is not overly long and would be better placed in the main page for the series (Strictly Come Dancing (Series 5)) if the weekly scores are considered worthy of keeping. Hera1187 (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Strictly Come Dancing (Series 6) Weekly Scores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep: I think it is useful for people to see what the individual scores were from the judges. The reason I originally created it as a separate page was because if we included these individual scores on the main series 5 page (for example), then the article would be massive. However, if someone can suggest a better way of including those scores on the main page, I'm willing to vote for merge instead. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reporting the scores given in a game show to this level of detail violates WP:NOT#STATS, gives more detail than is appropriate for a general readership, and is the equivalent of writing blow-by-blow summaries of an action movie's fight scenes, a practice which has been roundly condemned. I apologize to the editor(s) who spent their time and effort compiling it, but this is not encyclopedic content. --erachima talk 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If people are interested in the scores I'm reasonably sure there is a proper website for fans or others to get that data. That isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of SCD stats, what exactly do you think can be merged? -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a mass of detailed statistics. Nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a fan forum nor an indiscrimate collection of statistics. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GirlFriends

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

Says it's a manga, for which we don't have explicit specific notability guidelines. So, falling back on our general guidelines, it appears it might fail general notability, since the google search doesn't reveal any "extensive coverage" or whatnot. This could, however, be due to it being foreign language, so I figure I'll try posting here in case anyone is more specialized in the topic. Cheers. =) slakr\ talk / 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple other articles redlink to Milk Morinaga, which seems to be the offical romanization of her penname. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe she goes by Morinaga Milk as a pun on the name of an actual milk company. --erachima talk 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like somebody tried to correct the situation, and the results were speedy deleted. Lovely. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but Morinaga is listed as her family name, so in Western order that'd be Milk Morinaga. Unfortunately her website seems to be down at the moment, so I can't tell what her preference is, and IFAK she's never been licensed in the West so there's no officially sanctioned order. Either way for this discussion tho'. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her name is sometimes romanized as "Milk Morinaga" in her works (example), so it can be considered an "official" romanization. —MakiMaki (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any notability either. There are thousands of them, surely not all notable. -- Alexf42 10:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we cant host an article for any manga. No notabillity, per nomination. abf /talk to me/ 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Running out of space, are we...? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, we do have notability guidelines for manga: per the relevant wikiproject, WP:BK applies. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the few ongoing yuri manga not being run in one of the Yuri Hime titles, this title gets a lot of discussion in forums, especially yuri-related forums -- a lot of attention for something not yet licensed in English. The only reliable source coverage I can find in a quick search, however, is Erika Friedman's review of volume 1 (yes, self-published, but expert in the field, and so approved by the folks over at WT:RS at one point). There may be more coverage in Japanese, though I note that there isn't a ja-wiki article, which is usually a strong indicator of non-notability for manga. Withholding !vote till I can research more. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's gotten notice in English, which is strongly indicative of notablity, but I cannot find enough to demonstrate it to the requirements of WP:BK. If anyone can find notice in Japanese, I would change that to a keep, but until then, no. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 Second Film

AfDs for this article:
The 1 Second Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sorry but as WP:INTERESTING as this little project may be, this unreleased film is not yet notable and relies far too heavily on blogs and the like for sourcing. The WP:CRYSTAL issues aside, it simply lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party publications. Ironically, the article itself even makes that very point!! JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons I've outlined as nominator. Projected release date is 2010? Come on. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, true, the release date is 2010, but it's not the film itself that makes it notable, but the social aspects. It's well-sourced, this is a well-known project. Corvus cornixtalk 07:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well sourced? Are you kidding me? Remove all the references to IMDb *MESSAGE BOARDS* and what you have left is table scraps. JBsupreme (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], unfortunately most of them are archived. Corvus cornixtalk 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources outside of IMDb message boards. IMDB freaking message boards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Erik's save, plenty of good sources now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. This film simply is not yet notable, and we really should not be citing message boards or blogs for encyclopedia articles, either. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I say this after having just read all the links provided by Corvus cornix above. The mentions were either press releases or trivial mentions in passing. Nothing substantial at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in light of recent changes made to the article, the new cites are more than substantial enough for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added references, all predominantly about the film: there is coverage in Canada AM, Windsor Star, The Province, The Daytona Beach News-Journal, Brandweek, and even a New Zealand newspaper, The Sunday Star-Times. There's now more than enough there for WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those look suitable I think. What should be done about all the material being sourced to IMDb forums? JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. The article is much improved, and I think it's enough to meet our standards. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per major improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it seems notable enough; and for what it's worth, the only IMDB Message Board sources are contained within the "IMDb History" section and give information from the IMDb officials that isn't recorded anywhere else (and is required for that section of the article to explain their otherwise mysterious actions), so in that context I feel they're appropriate. It's not like they're just postings from some random user, this is an official declaration straight from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangocow (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all except Elmer A. Lampe. I'm happy to userfy on request. lifebaka++ 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward A. Wescott

Ward A. Wescott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Head coaches of lower division college football teams which don't apear to be notable. Again I've only nominated coaches with only a single reference which is both trivial and not independent. Any coaches with other claims to notability have not been included. Nor have recent coaches. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Also nominated:

J.G. Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John D. Schwender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark D. Nave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harrison McJohnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Davies (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John E. Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roy E. Haberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C.C. Boone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madison Bell (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Norris Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vincent Batha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elmer A. Lampe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John W. Breen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F.J. (Mickey) McCormick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steve Miller (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark W. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dpmuk (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except for P. Norris Armstrong as he has a pretty size-able number of wins, and for that, I am neutral for him. --Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question' Could you outline how you checked? DGG (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all due to lack of non-trivial references from non-first-party sources. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All for collaboration and future expansion. Head coaches of notable programs are notable. By the way, I just became aware of this AfD. I will list it with the appropriate projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way Walter J West article is being re-tooled as he has been found to have a career in the NFL. This is what commonly happens with college coaches--they don't do just "one thing" but have many areas they impact. The collaboration with other users helps to lead to improvement of such articles, and AfDs buried in large piles (we had 58 others in the last week at our project, not incliding these 18!) gives a tough response time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Elmer A. Lampe (coach 1934-37) appears to be the same as Elmer Lampe who was head basketball coach for the Georgia Bulldogs 1938-47, and Dartmouth Big Green ~1948-51. I added the appropriate templates to his page. I presume that the Bulldogs aren't a minor college/team? Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep Robert Larsen (coach 1977). There is also a Robert Larsen who coached the Chicago Maroons from 1980-82. His record was 3-23-1 there. Possible keep depending on the notability of the Maroons, record etc. Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The University of Chicago has had a Division III team since the late 1960s, after having nothing more than intramural teams or no team at all for the thirty previous years. It's even less notable than before, even presuming that this is the same fellow.  RGTraynor  18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the rest No indication that they achieved anything other than coaching at a minor college, with no titles, trophies, awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of non-trivial sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All(except for Lampe): for failure to meet WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO. I'm unimpressed with "appears to be the same" or "possibly the same fellow," lines that have come up a lot in these minor coach AfDs; more often than not, there is no evidence that they are in fact the same people, and in two cases already they've been shown not to be.  RGTraynor  18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very pleased to confirm that Elmer A. Lampe is Elmer Lampe, coach at the University of Georgia. From Carroll College: The First Century, 1846-1946. Google Books searches also throw up that he published at least 2 academic papers on on sport: Statistics as an Aid to Football Strategy in Scholastic Coach and How to Play Defensive End in The Athletic Journal. Tassedethe (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for Lampe as a DI coach at Georgia. Every time we hit one of these mass nominations, it seems like at least one of these coaches has something. I'd request that the nominators do some due diligence before mass nominating. matt91486 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too am uncomfortable with these mass housecleaning efforts. They seem quite pointy and in defiance of trying to work collaboratively. If these were put in list form, for instance, and tied to the respective teams this would seem fine if these people are otherwise non-notable. I've yet to see one of these list AfDs where all were deleted. And having to cope with 18 AfDs at once is quite imbalanced, IMHO. And these are simply the latest 18 after nearly 60 others were sent through the ringer over the last few weeks. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You've said this elsewhere, on the Articles for Deletion talk page, and were answered there: that in fact mass AfDs are encouraged to avoid clogging up the works, when they can be properly bundled together in a common theme ... and as to that, AfD copes quite well with a hundred or more nominated articles a day. If you'd like to change consensus to officially discourage them, that's fine, but this isn't the venue to make that case.  RGTraynor  03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I understand mass AfDs generally speaking, but I don't think that excuses the nominator from making sure that some of the articles aren't notable for other reasons. matt91486 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took a good bit of digging by more than one editor, seemingly, to come up with the information for Lampe. As it happens, the explicit onus to prove notability or to find reliable sources isn't on the nominator at AfD. Doing a spot check should be encouraged (although there's a lot of resistance to that, coming out of the same discussion), but requiring noms to "make sure" is unreasonable. That being said, User_talk:Benjiboi seems to think there's something wrong with evidence of independent notability turning up with a coach or two in these mass AfDs. Frankly, I'm all for it: several sets of eyes are better than one, and this is a perfectly good time to save an article if feasible. I can't imagine what's uniquely disruptive about such scrutiny being done at AfD as opposed to the previous year, when none was being given at all.  RGTraynor  13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point, and I do have one, is that instead of taking dozens of football articles to AfD at all why not engage the creators and editors to instead convert the majority into useable list articles. The last AFD would have made a fine article taking material we already had. Instead two of the list stayed that were able to stand on their own, within the days of AfD process and the rest were deleted. I suggested then a merge but got no response. That an article isn't improved for months at a time isn't surprising. That 18 aren't whipped into shape in days is also unsurprising. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And nothing prevents that from being done at any time, pre- or post-AfD: just about all the information on almost all of these AfDs are the years of service and won-lost records, all cribbed off of the respective college websites. (Come to that, nothing prevents you from doing that now; turning this AfD into a list would take what, about twenty minutes?)  RGTraynor  23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all as rediculous bundle nomination. Bundle nominations are for subjects whose independent notability is unlikely. Such as all books in a series, all parts of any whole. These are all people, and each could be a famous cook, politician, author, town drunk, murderer, cat-juggler, female impersonator, gold digger, worm eater, or gold medal winning Olympian. Each must be considered separately, so this nomination is doomed. Speedy close the mess. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most but Keep Larsen and Lampe I am also not opposed to an IAR relisting for a few days to allow editors time to look through these some more. I would support that more than a no consensus close here. I understand that mass AfD's are trying but this one (at least by % found to be notable) seems to have been well researched. And before we go blaming the nominator for causing this mess single handedly, we have to remember that the CFB project took it on themselves to operate by their project-wide consensus on notability when creating and policing articles, rather than WP:ATHLETE. I would also be fine with a redirect or merge to each respective program. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An extremely lazy bundle nomination Each one of these need to be looked at as a separate AFD. Close this nonsense. SashaNein (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Rewritten and sourced by Avram (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish National Caucus

Irish National Caucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been tagged for notablity for ten months and has no sources/context. We66er (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - by consensus. --VS talk 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code Lyoko around the world

Code Lyoko around the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed prod. Article exists to list all 160 counties that play a cartoon called Code Lyoko. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information such as this. I suggest the fact be mentioned in the main article, link to the source, and delete this page. mboverload@ 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- WTF is your deal, man? This article hasn't even existed for half an hour, and it's still being worked on, which is hard to do when I'm likely to have edit conflicts all the time because of you and your BS. GIVE IT A CHANCE to exist. You're incredibly rude and impatient. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that it was premature to AfD. However, delete as WP is not TV Guide even if it were to reach its fullest potential. I'm not even sure this content is notable enough to be worthy to include in the parent. If the goal is to prove the program's popularity by listing the networks and countries that have it, that's WP:OR...just get an cite saying how many have it for the main article. DMacks (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. There was no need to wait as it would be impossible for this to evolve into a proper Wikipedia page. Prod was removed. I'm open to suggestions though, how would you have handled it? (not sarcastic, I'm willing to learn) --mboverload@ 06:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "impossible". Unlikely, I'm sure. But at least in principle a discussion of the international audience and cultural impact of a children's television show could have enough content to warrant it's own article. Of course, somehow I doubt Code Lyoko is in the same class as Sesame Street. No real harm in giving the author an opportunity to try to develop into more than a list of broadcasters though. Dragons flight (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have waited a few hr--added tags for notability and whatever other PROD issues, put a comment that the page seemed hopeless on its talk. Normal editors would use that as a cue to explain why the page should stand, or merge it back in from whence it forked, or somehow else edit collaboratively (sometimes they realize the problem and delete the page themselves!). Normal editors aren't prone to lashing out and getting themselves blocked repeatedly for it. I didn't realize the history here until after I wrote the above. AfD is certainly a way to force the issue into the public view, which seems to have been necessary here. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for explaining your views to me. Next time I will just stick the page in my Outlook calendar to check back in a day or two after adding some tags. Thanks. --mboverload@ 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wholly unnecessary breakout article of a barely notable cartoon. JuJube (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there any truth to the assertion "Code Lyoko, France's most popular Television show of alltime"? Corvus cornixtalk 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really notable LegoKontribsTalkM 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary spin-out. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game guide stuff. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being unnotable and violating WP:NOT in a number of ways. At its best it is a section in the main article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose there is an outlying possibility that a notable article could be written on this subject, but it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. This sort of content is meant to be included as a part of the main series article, with the only exceptions being cases of historically important authors where their global impact has been a subject of scholarly study, i.e. International reception of Tolkien. --erachima talk 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is something to mention on the main Code Lyoko page. It doesn't really merit it's own page. Whispering 09:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User is likely a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RhoLyokoWarrior. Puppetmaster is User:Rikara, and recent sock is User:FalconPunch2. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see this information being the least bit notable. Deli nk (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, tagged jus' li' that. treelo radda 09:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Criss

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

Created by a one purpose account, this long article offers no evidence of encyclopedic notability per WP:MUSIC. None of his releases can be found on Amazon.com. Some of the touted accomplishments lie in the future (quote from earlier version: In mid 2008, Criss signed with international promotions agency Go Large Records and in October 2008 was featured in there [sic] east coast tour.). HaeB (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator, there is nothing here which meets WP:MUSIC and it just fails every way possible. JBsupreme (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete. No notability asserted. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summerside (band)

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

Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to what the page history may show at a glance, I did not create the text for this article. I created the original page Summerside as a redirect, which was subsequently edited by others to mention this band. This eventually lead to the page being moved to where it currently sits. Other than that, I had no part in creating the text of this article. The nominator should revisit the page history and notify the editor(s) of interest. RedWolf (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always Too Late

Always Too Late (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really promoted, no music video. It doesn't seem like any sources covered this single, so it'd fail WP:MUSIC. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Without You

Happy Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really promoted as a single, no accompanying music video. It doesn't look like any reliable sources covered the song, so it'd fail WP:MUSIC. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Levine

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

This article has been on Wikipedia for over a year but is still unreferenced. Unreferenced biographies should probably be removed. Bwrs (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism

Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:OR by being a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This page was created by an anarcho-capitalist and seems to be intended to promote anarcho-capitalism over minarchism. The bias is small, but is slightly more visible in the original version of the article (I removed an unverifiable biased part). Ignoring the bias, most of the content is verifiable, being backed by an article on a sufficiently respectable anarchist website. However, even a neutral version of this synthesis would have little content, value and interest/notability. Chealer (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —--Bsnowball (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect although lack of neutrality is not a reason for deletion, the very real debate which the article deals with is a non-notable argument amongst a very small group of people & is better dealt with as a section in Anarcho-capitalism or similar.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain please, Bsnowball, how you judge the sources in the article (at this time or at the time of your comment) not to satisfy the general notability guideline? Or, if you are using some other yardstick, could you explain what it is and how this topic fails it? I would appreciate it. Thanks, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
  • Keep This is not to be deleted for lack of neutrality, and while a small issue, it is reasonably covered by several sources throughout it. I see nine sources, with a total of fifteen citations, within three reasonably sized paragraphs, and includes a list of further reading. It may be a small debate, but it is apparently notable within the field. It sees a very small amount of traffic, but to help that it has been connected to a larger series of anarcho-capitalist articles with a footer navigation bar. Anyone researching the subject should be able to find it through this system. I see nothing wrong with this article that can't be improved, and while it may never be a featured article, it could achieve GA status.--Cast (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see Skomorokh has been active in retrieving sources for the article. I applaud his effort, and encourage the nominator to take greater care not to bring notable articles before AfD in the future. --Cast (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Libertarianism as that article has a somewhat different set of classifications which we should endeavour to bring together rather than forking. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem highly inappropriate to merge an article on anarcho-capitalism and minarchism with Libertarianism. Now merging the content into Anarcho-Capitalism or Minarchism would be understandable, but still unwise. If the subject is notably discussed, it can have it's own article and be properly forked if the subject matter can form its own page. Skomorokh has steadily revealed that there are plenty of sources for this to be an independent page. Merging it into a third subject would seem nonsensical. How are a set of "different classifications" a justification for such a merge? I'm not following.--Cast (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of this article is currently: "Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are the two distinct strains of libertarianism". The article Libertarianism breaks it down into 9 different viewpoints. These are competing analyses. Best to have it all in one place so that the reader gets the full picture. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the view points listed, only two are of interest to this article. At one paragraph each, wouldn't it be easier to repeat these two entries on this article, rather than merging the whole of this article, and whatever may be added to it in the future, to that one? Further, your suggestion is that the relationship between these two viewpoints should be merged into Libertarianism is tantamount to suggesting that the "Issues in anarchism" article should be added to the main "Anarchism" page. It would create a Libertarianism article with undue weight given to a discussion among two of its offshoots. I feel the relationship can be summarized on Libertarianism, but it shouldn't be completely merged. --Cast (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Colonel, by the claim that A-C and Min are "the two strains of libertarianism" I think the source should be interpreted to mean "A-C and Min are two camps into which all libertarians may be divided" rather than "A-C and Min are the only 2 types of libertarianism". You could just as easily divide libertarians by their justification; deontological or consequentialist.
Regarding your !vote, this topic is one which is very well suited to being merged, as it is a debate internal to libertarianism. However, if you examine the sources, I'm sure you will agree with me that there is more than enough referencable content to write a long and complete article on this topic itself. Sincerely, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • divide or delete. Per the article itself " the two distinct strains of libertarianism"; as such, if they warrant an article separate from the main subject, and I think they do, they should be separate. I leave it to the experts whether this is unduly selective, not including equally important other ones, it which case it's a content fork. and more than 2 articles should be created. But the existing combination article cannot standDGG (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry David, but I don't understand this comment at all. We already have a featured article on the highly notable anarcho-capitalism as well as a less-developed article on minarchism. This article is part of an article series on Category:Issues in anarchism; see for comparison anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, anarchism and capitalism and anarchism and Marxism. If you read the references in the article, it will be clear to you that the anarchism-minarchism debate within libertarianism is long-running, prominent and notable beyond question, not only among the literati, but also as the core principle ideological debate within the third largest political party in the most powerful nation in the world. There is enough significant coverage of the relationship of these two doctrines to fulfill the WP:GNG dozens of times over, already referenced in the article. Could you please clarify your position? Regards, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Cast. All the other issues seems to be WP:Problems that should be addressed through regular editing. Constructive suggestions in these fields are helpful but I don't see a compelling reason to delete as much as fix. To be clear, if synthesis is a concern then lean on what sources comparing or discussing the two state; it may be that this needs to encompass more subfield to remain NPOV. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I honestly don't know where to begin. The fact that an article like this would be nominated for deletion at all and the apparent absence of any effort or desire to research the topic by those favoring deletion make this one of the most disheartening episodes I've experienced on Wikipedia in a long time. The inclusion criteria for a topic in Wikipedia is the notability threshold, by convention. That threshold is passed, and an article on a topic deemed appropriate, if there is significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. The topic of this article is the relationship between the twin philosophies of minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. When this article was proposed for deletion, it referenced the book Anarchism/Minarchism, a full-length examination of the topic edited by two highly-respected academic scholars of libertarianism, Tibor Machan and Roderick Long. I have since added several more references, as well as direct links to the Libertarianism entries in the authoritative online encyclopaediae Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I suggest you pause and take a few minutes to read the latter: [50] [51]. Yes, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockmaster, who may have had ulterior motive related to this, was originally a WP:COATRACK, and it is a lamentably cursory treatment of the subject. Yet WP:PROBLEMS with the content of articles unrelated to notability can be overcome, and are irrelevant to question of deletion. I ask in all seriousness, why are we even discussing this? the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skomorokh and Cast. The significance of the issues being addressed in the article, and the woefully inadequate deletion arguments provided, have been well illustrated by the skomorokh. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After discussing with Jerry. This has been up for long enough, and there's very little support for keeping the article. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krav Maga Worldwide

Krav Maga Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV, Advertising, Censorship, Conflict of Interest, Threats. Major contributor is subject of article; Major contributor removes cited information conflicting with his/her point of view with no justification. Adbaculum (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A minor point. Yes, the author is tied up in this article. However, it has several references, which all check out, and the material you are trying to repeatedly add is both completely unreferenced, violates BLP, and are based on a very un-NPOV way of looking at the material -- and you are involved with this too. AfD is not where you go to clean up articles. It needs cleanup, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you still have those references handy, could you fill in some of the details on them in the article--title, author(s), page number(s) (for print references) or a link (for online references)? As it is, just the periodical title and month isn't really a full citation--the complete information would make it easier for other people who wanted to verify the references. Chuck (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If having refernces to USPTO trademark application numbers were the point of dispute I do not think outright deleting the section in dispute would be appropriate (I am uncertain how to properly cite a US trademark application). I am not sure clean-up is possible considering the obvious hostility of the author/subject of this article and the nature of it which is heavily nn. Also note the author's efforts to manipulate the Krav Maga topic to eliminate references to competing organizations and add his/her own. Also note the use of promotional outside links against Wikipedia standard of using links. It is my belief Author is using Wikipedia as a marketing channel which is not part of it's intended function. Adbaculum (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial mentions, COI fluff. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete I made a pass at resolving the COI and advert issues, but unless the references are cleaned up and clarified so they can be checked, there's not much more to do with it. The only one I can find, which is here [52] does not mention the company at all, and indeed predates its claimed founding by a year. gnfnrf (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current, edited version of the article makes the remarkable claim that the US military contracts out the training of special forces in martial arts to this business. If true, this would make a fairly convincing case for notability. But that's the sort of double-take claim that needs more specific pinpoint references than what's given. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Pardon my ignorance at procedure here at Wiki. Heres a link to a scanned recent letter from the Department of the Air force. http://focusselfdefense.com/sites/default/files/images/AFOSI-AST%20Letter%20of%20Commendation%20(small).jpg We have many such letters of appreciation please let me know if I can supply you with any more information. I won’t be adding anymore content to the page and I have only attempted to remove what we consider vandalism by rival factions. This information might also be of note http://www.cafi.us/post.htm regarding our work with law enforcement. The California Association of Force Instructors announced its using KMW to teach is 80hr certified Defensive Tactics course. Thank you for your efforts they are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwwinc (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To best support the inclusion of the article, it should have multiple sources to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In order to verify that the coverage is non-trivial, your references should be to the specific claims that the source supports, and should be detailed enough that someone else can use the information to look up the source. Currently, the article has a number of sources lumped at the end, but it isn't clear what you think those sources say, and the references to them are too vague to easily check. Replacing those sources with clearly defined ones (including dates and page numbers in some standard style) would be a good start. See WP:References for good starting guidelines. gnfnrf (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you for your comments and suggestions. However as an employee of KMW I really did not wish to write or edit this article any further based on some of the above comments stating I was biased. I think it would be best that a non partial individual utilize the existing material in order to sustain credibility to the content. Am I incorrect in assuming this wouldn’t be the best course of action? KMWWinc (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is very true. In general, people with a vested interest in the article subject should not edit that article, per WP:COI. However, what I am asking is not to change the content of the article, but to clarify the references. If you aren't comfortable editing the article, then just specifying the reference material in more detail on the talk page might help. gnfnrf (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Krav Maga while we are at it. Non-notable spam articles without reliable 3rd party sourcing which cover the subject in a significant manner. It isn't about the number of references but, about the quality and both articles fail on that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti's fifth studio album

Ashanti's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No refs, no title, WP:CRYSTAL applies AndrewHowse (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete per nom. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 by Antandrus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spurgle

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

WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTDICT. Largo Plazo (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOW Keep. Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth School

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

No notability established and no sources included within the article. The article only has a small list of links which are all links to the various school websites. Since this appears to be a private school, the sole purpose of the creation of the article appears to be to promote the school. Redgator5 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - For reasons stated above.Redgator5 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This appears to be an individual who is clearly knowledgeable about Wikipedia who seems to have established an account specifically for the deletion of this one article.

  • Keep: This is an undersourced article, but the topic is definitely notable, and it has potential for improvement. A quick news search brings up a number of potential third-party sources that could corroborate some parts, and it's not inappropriate for a school to be major source of basic information about itself and its history. The article is not solely promotional. Compare to any other school or university article; it's not unlike many other articles. Avram (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how the nominator came to the rather questionable conclusion that any article about a private school must by necessity be an advertisement. This seems more like an article that requires the addition of some of the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the school to be added to the article, which could have been done through use one of the many tags available for this purpose. Based on the history of the school and the significant number of notable alumni, supported by reliable and verifiable sources to be added to the article, the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly significant school that educates at high school level and includes a boarding school. Nearly 400 years of history and plenty of references available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 400 year old school? Yeah I think thats notable enough. I have also added sources. Fosnez (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest that the nominator be twatted around the head (in a fun way) about nominating articles like this again. Fosnez (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. All 400 year-old institutions are verfiable and notable. Delete nominator as disruptive single-purpose sock account. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Pretty obvious WP:SPA account trying to delete an article about a 400-year-old educational institution? LOLWUT??? JBsupreme (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaShout

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

Non-notable software project; blatent advertising OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Publisher: "'unknown' yet". That explains it all... seicer | talk | contribs 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiden Ninja

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

Non-existant series, hoax article. Per talk page comments, this may be some fan creation thing, but if so it is completely unnnotable. Was already prodded once and deleted. After recreation, it was reprodded with reason of "Recreation of article already deleted by PROD - does not actually exist per infoboxes" and the prod was removed without reason by an IP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sure looks dubious, lots of hits for Ninja Gaiden (the various games0 but none except WP for this variant. I have my doubts that the owners of the game rights would smile on an inversion of their product name, so it may be still born even if it is a real project. 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScot (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, clear hoax. --erachima talk 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BS , create redirect to Ninja Gaiden if others think appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Please note the results of a google search for the alleged author, "Robert Kemngang," turns up exactly four hits. Three of them are Wikipedia. The fourth is www.molinu.org/haiku_manga about an alleged manga series called "Haiku." The Gaiden Ninja article creator is User:Haikumanga. Hmmm.... history has already shown this user will recreate the article as many times as need be, so if this article can be salted, so much the better. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as this is complete WP:BOLLOCKS. There is also an apparent conflict of interest with the article and its creator. However, hold the salt and see if the user carries through. MuZemike (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is yet another hoax placed on Wikipedia and should be treated like the vandalism that it is. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax --Banime (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-10 International

10-10 International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Fails notability per WP:ORG. Does not meet the Notability (organizations and companies) Djdubuque (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any substantial coverage either in google news archives or on Lexis. Despite 70,000 members, nothing establishes notability.--chaser - t 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TravellingCari 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodio

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

I am having little luck confirming notability of this. The article does not pass WP:RS or WP:V, and it may fall into WP:NEO realm, too. Can anyone confirm its notability? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you follow the external link for the lyrics, the web poage also states: a game called “Zudie-O” in Step It Down, their book on African American games, plays, songs, and stories from the Georgia Sea Isles (The University of Georgia Press, 1972, pages 137-138). If, as is asserted, it's the same game, that's one source from a University Publisher, which should meet the RS level. Now, is there a second source out there? If so, and the possible versions of the game are discussed, maybe its notable enough. MadScot (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While [youtube] isn't usually a reference, a small child performing 'a song she learned in school' would have to be a component of an impressive hoax. I'd say it's real. Now, notable enough???MadScot (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS also found numerous blogs and similar referring to this song, not RS of course. May also be known as 'Zodiac'[reply]
I found the text of the book you cited online here: [53]. But beyond one-and-a-half pages in that book, I am not able to locate any confirmation that such a song/game exists, let alone enjoys urban popularity. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The university press book including it is enough. The book is actually a republication of a 1972 Harper book. Republication by such a press is a good indication of reliability. The book is widely known, being held in over 1000 libraries according to WorldCat. . The authors, Bessie Jones is a well known traditional singer, and & Bess Lomax Hawes is a well-known folklore researcher. Such traditional games are of course hard to source, but I'd consider this authoritative. DGG (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG makes a strong case that the one ref is good enough. More would be nice, but this will do. I now vote. MadScot (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pagent != Notability seicer | talk | contribs 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brintha Vasagar

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

Claim of notability for one reason only, winning a pageant that doesn't even have a WP entry. Unreferenced, with no articles linking to it. Bongomatic (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but will reconsider if she becomes a future VP nominee Politics n such (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Proskuryakov

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

Fails notability Kwedin (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KHL is second only to the NHL; professional league. Not really much doubt. MadScot (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamper

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

Delete as neologism. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why was this relisted? Neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a neologistic dictdef, or as a dictdefdic neologism. Whaaatever. --Lockley (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ffm 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Rain Genomics

Falling Rain Genomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article has one link toa book spending a paragraph on thiswebsite. Apart from that, all I was able to find from reliable sources are a few that acknowledged using it, but nothing else about the website. This Google News search using FallingRain (the alternative name for FR Genomics) yields nothing of value[54]. The site is probably useful in some circumstances (and very unreliable in other ones), but usefulness is not a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The article suffers from a lack of a link to www.fallingrain.com ; that aside, the question is whether site this has attracted attention, and if a search doesn't confirm that it has, I don't see a reason for keeping it. While, at first, the google search suggests that there are 134,000 ghits it actually works out to 216 . I gave the site a try, and to me it appears difficult to navigate. Once the problems are worked out, it may be more useful as a service. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually weakening an argument for deletion here, but your Google count of 216 is a typical google count error. Google only gives the number of distinct pages in the first 1,000 results, not in all 134,000. Similarly, Wikipedia also only has about 430 distinct hits if you scroll to the end of the Google search results. Google believes apparently that no one goes looking beyond 1,000 hits, which is often very annoying. Fram (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, and I appreciate the clarification. I remember once when I was citing ghits in support of keeping an article, an editor called me a liar because I hadn't gone to the end to get the "true" number. Up until now, I wasn't sure why there were different numbers, and that's extremely helpful. I remain unpersuaded by the article itself about how much fallingrain is actually used. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if only by virtue of the fact that a search of "falling rain genomics" site:wikipedia.org returns 14,500 hits. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that use Falling Rain's data. The site is not terribly easy to navigate, but that alone does not disqualify listing. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak no consensus all this talk about usefulness of the site and its navigability is as if we use subjective original research to determine notability. That's just maddening. And Ghits are not the sole arbiter of notability, either. If we do not have the time or inclination to scrutinize this article under the notability criteria, let's just keep it by default until we do. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Yokoyama

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

This article has no real notability nor reference. This is purely vanity 69.234.126.61 (talk · contribs) Text copied from edit summary left when 69.234.126.61 placed the AfD tag. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing editor's note: Normally, I'd probably not list an anon's nomination with such a vague rationale; however, the references in the article are generic and don't mention the subject at all that I can see (and one of them is "as stated in several fansites" which is Not Good) and a quick Google shows the only hit on this Taro Yokoyama on the first page of results is to Wikipedia. So I'm listing here on the basis that others may chose to troutwhack me for my ignorance. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Only 7 Google hits for Taro.Yokoyama Givenchy: Copies of Wikipedia articles and [55], which seems to be a self-pulished entry. The only verifiable reference in the article is the link to style.com, which seems to be a fake - the linked page doesn't mention his name at all. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


{{Prod-2}} This person is known throughout Japan & Hawaii as a high fashion model, I believe the Hokkaido High Fashion Magazine has an article on him in the fall/2008 issue.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLP, also no evidence of notability. TravellingCari 02:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dellums

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

Notability is not asserted or established in this article, and it certainly isn't inherited. Whether this is good or bad, being a convicted murderer does not convey notability either. Finally, whether or not one is a convicted murderer, the article must still adhere to WP:BLP, and without sufficient sources, it is questionable that this article does so. I do understand most of the claims are made in the one citation given in the article, but I'm not sure it's enough, and there's still the problem of the subject not being notable in the first place.  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Coatrack. The subject of the article is being used to attack his father. Horologium (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jones (musician)

Dylan Jones (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. No relevant ghits for this person in connection with Violent Femmes or Pierce Williams. No evidence of a band called "Wayco Kids". Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not sure it's a hoax (this may or may not be the same guy), but notability and verifiability don't appear to be there either. (If it's so hard to figure out who's who...that does not generally imply notability.)  Frank  |  talk  14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration Covenant Church

Celebration Covenant Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church; borderline advertising. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created the article. Celebration Covenant Church is notable for leading change and innovation in church media.

'Celebration Covenant Church in Frisco, Texas, recently completed the construction of a new facility that is on the cutting edge of media presentation for worship.', Media Merge, Inc http://www.mediamerge.com/projects.php?id=11

Celebration Covenant Church is notable in Frisco, Texas. It is one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the city. 'The Most Creative Place In The Universe', The Frisco Enterprise, May 2005 http://www.celebrationcovenant.com/D_Highlights/cccnews/news200705.asp

Celebration Covenant Church is currently building it's second phase building - the Cathedral of Frisco. 'The Cathedral of Frisco', Star Community Newspapers http://www.scntx.com/admarket/ads/10105446/ pepegatorPepegator (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. To meet WP's notability criteria it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't believe the ones you've listed qualify, for the following reasons: This reference is from the site of the company that designed the sound system, this reference doesn't show up for me, but appears to be an ad. It's also unclear what the purpose of this article is. It reads like adcopy, and I couldn't find it on the newspaper's website [56] to confirm one way or the other. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article that justs promotes some entity and is not encyclopedic, if I am not wrong I think it was speedy deleted already. Brilliant trees (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was, under WP:CSD#A7. The article I read suggested membership in the thousands, which I thought was at least a claim of notability and therefore made it ineligible for A7. I considered WP:CSD#G11 too, but thought it might be less contentious to just do it this way. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and info. Correct - The first article was deleted. It was deleted before any issues with the article could be assessed and addressed. This second article was posted which included references and better formatting. Our intention is to create a relevant article. We are not attempting to just promote or advertise.Pepegator
Thanks for your reply. I agree your intentions appear good, but the problem--in my opinion--isn't the tone of the article, it's that its subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. I've tried, but I cannot find any reliable sources covering the church (search results). You may find it helpful to read the guidelines at WP:CHURCH, which is what I'm basing my analysis on. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article relates to another article on WikipediA site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco,_Texas pepegator —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC). [reply]
  • Please only "vote" once. This makes it easier on us when we go to close the discussion. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- I have little idea whether this is a notable church or not. However the article lacks WP:NPOV and reads like an WP:ADVERT. I would suggest that if it is not notable enough to be retained, a shortened version should be merged to the article on Frisco, as a local facility. In any event the excessive hype of the churhc must go. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources - one cite is to their own website, another to a "community" newsletter type of periodical, the third can not be ascertained. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non noteable as above Politics n such (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable with no substantial coverage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is it isn't a notable character or a likely search term TravellingCari 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina (The Naked Brothers Band)

Rosalina (The Naked Brothers Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a plot regurgitation for a film and TV character. No significant standalone ghits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although technically I created the stub, it was only to split it out from a disambig page I was cleaning up 1 1/2 years ago. I don't object to its deletion. Chris the speller (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Naked Brothers Band main article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable kid's show sidekick. No one is going to type this long title in to look for information on this character. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The plot summary is already covered in the film article, so no merger necessary. I can't see the benefit of a redirect. – sgeureka t•c 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra (erotic actress)

Sierra (erotic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pornographic actress, but shows no sign of passing WP:PORNBIO. No sources other than a nearly trivial film database entry, and none other available. gnfnrf (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The fandango

The result was Delete. Jennavecia (Talk) 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is almost certainly a hoax or at the very least is suffering from a chronic case of original research. I'm tempted to speedy delete this but I'm bringing it here just in case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as nominated. Terminal WP:OR I think. X Marx the Spot (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. JJL (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page isn't finished yet. I'm not saying that the Beast of Bray Road is a fandango, but it sure fits the description. I've never seen one, but I have interviewed people who have. It does fit with the legends of the Wisconsin Werewolf and the Michigan Dog-man. go ahead and delete it if you want, but at least let me finish it first. I haven't included the sightings from these past two summers, or the accounts of the witnesses who have claimed to see it. The fandango is also the of hearing the Ho Chunk name for a creature that they say prowled the woods and devoured men's souls CampMythmaker (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CampMythmaker (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Rubbish. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated, since this is a hoax or nonsense at worst, and original research at best. Either way, it has no place on Wikipedia in its current form.--Terrillja (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was just a sighting of the Michigan Dogman, which is another example of the fandango indian legend making a modern return. CampMythmaker (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, this might be a hoax....but i've heard of the tales the native indians used to tell about a certain creature that lurks and prowls through the great woods of Wisconsin. Then ask yourself how can you know that it is not real. God only knows what he put on this earth and no one knows all the secrets that can live in the woods.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.32.77 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. With all due respect, this is dopey nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • c'mon, it is a legend that is told by the Native peoples of Wisconsin. will it at least be allowed to be finished? we go on fandango hunts at the summer camp that i work for, and the kids all write home to ask their parents to look up a fandango, cause they, like you, have never seen or heard of one. but they aren't able to look for it on the net, because it's not there. if a place like Wikipedia isn't going to allow a simple indian legend to be added to the encyclopedia, then who else will?CampMythmaker (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's wrong with the entry that it should be gotten rid of on that charge? 139.78.98.247 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quit being lame Wikipedia. Everyone knows your site is crap anyways. No one actually uses this garbage for real facts, so get over yourselves and let the boy have a little fun. Maybe if you scoobs would get off your computers every once in a while you'd know how to have a little fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aderhold02 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Aderhold02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete the comment above solidifies the fact that this utter retardation needs to be burned with fire and blocks handed out for being bored drunken idiots children seeking to undermine the websight. JuJube (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hodag > this. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or OR, and suggest investigation of Aderhold02 whose only edit appears to be the above attack. 23skidoo (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So let's see - the Ho-Chunk people of Wisconsin have this legend, which closely resembles eastern European werewolf myths, about a creature named after a popular Spanish dance? I don't believe a word of it. Not notable, not verifiable, and almost certainly not true. Plus, the writing in the article is shockingly bad - addressing the reader personally, for example. Delete the whole thing with silver bullets and bury it in a coffin of blessed yew at midnight. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator withdrawal.[57] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg-Leg Pedro

Peg-Leg Pedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this film is notable. It is simply an advertisement for Chevrolet and there is only 552 g-hits, most of them archives of the video. Tavix (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Sponsored films are highly notable (ask Rick Prelinger if you don't believe me!) and constitute a very important aspect of both non-theatrical filmmaking and U.S. marketing history. As a Chevrolet production, there is notability through its producer/sponsor. The article needs expanding, admittedly, but not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. I see where your coming from, but I still want to see what others have to say. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well.... I found a few more than 552. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS indictes over 17,000 downloads of the video. And it is in TheHistoricalArchive.com. And it is spoken of in The History or Animation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decided that it is a keeper per this search, it being historical inre early animation, it being archived, it being quite often reviewed, and it being part of a syllabus in the teaching of animation and its history. It meets WP:NF in all aspects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat willing to buy that sponsored films are notable, but I believe that for the sake of presentation it would probably be best to merge this article with the other Chevrolet-sponsored films in Category:Chevrolet to create a list with more potential for expansion. --erachima talk 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of 15 similar sponsored films with their own articles. --Lockley (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw All right, I'll agree this is notable. I should've done more research first I guess... 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Defenders Football Club

Dallas Defenders Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

an article about a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. 2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. League appears to be non-notable; none of the players appear to be notable, and calling this a "semi-pro" team might be stretching it. Team hasn't even begun play yet and these (very) minor leagues often fold. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Teams that haven't played any games yet would have to be very special in some other way to be notable.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I have removed the term "semi-pro" from the article because the players do not receive a salary for their play, they do so to raise monies for charities. The National Public Safety Football League [58] has been around for over ten years and adds new teams almost every year. There are now 22 teams in the league from Los Angeles to New York and everywhere in between. Seeing as the league of a non-profit, there is no business pressure to gain revenue or fold if revenues are not there. Those 22 teams represent nearly 1,000 police officers and firefighters that in addition to risking their lives everyday to protect their communities, they are being pro-active by one again risking injury to raise money for various charities, so I find the reference to the league being "non-notable" very subjective on that person's part. There is signifgant coverage of the league to include television coverages for some games, a league webite, and no original research is required to verify the league, which is wikipedia's criteria for notable.

As for the team, they are not simply a new team, but an absorbsion of a former team that has been playing since 1994 along with new talent. The first game is in three weeks, and if you happen to live in the Dallas area, or know anything about our strong football tradition, I would invite you to stop by and see for yourself the complexity of the team and likelihood to succeed. Would you delete an expansion NFL team because they hadn't played yet? I didn't create the name of the page, I simply entered the content, so someone else out there must have heard about the team as well. And no, the players on the teams are not noted for their football skills. Maybe half have even played college football, much less professional. However, these players are noted for their off-field achievements and actions. A member of the Philadelphia team gave his life this week trying to protect his city. How many "notable" players from other leagues would do that? Yes, it's a small league, but what's the harm of showing these guys a little bit of support and recognition by keeping this page intact? And yes, I am new to writing wiki pages, so please bear with me if I made a format error. Dsboice (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)--Dsboice (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Live

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

Contested CSD; Creator has removed CSD tag twice. This is a biography of an internet radio station DJ who manifestly fails to meet the requirements of notability and reliable sourcing. There is also a strong Conflict of Interest issue here, as the creator of the article is DCLive (talk · contribs), whose only edits to Wikipedia have been to this article and to the article for the internet radio station on which his show appears. This is a textbook case of CSD-A7, but I'm not going to edit-war with a user with strong ownership issues, and it would be inappropriate for me to block him or speedy delete the article, as I am clearly an involved editor at this point. FWIW, while I was typing up the rationale for this AFD, he removed the template for it as well. Horologium (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam for nn internet radio show. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, no references --Rtphokie (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but if sourcing could be found, even for the laudable charity efforts, I'd be willing to reconsider. - Dravecky (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoReal Cru

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

This article is definitely damaged goods, but I also feel that even if it were repaired to meet our WP:NPOV the group itself has yet to receive non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per rationale I've as nominator, lacks notability as an organization WP:ORG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has yet to receive the non-trivial coverage as required for these type of subjects to receive inclusion. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor (Band)

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

Seemingly non-notable musical group per WP:BAND. Creator removed speedy without comment or alteration. tomasz. 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Band exists and plays major venues, discography is correct, and main artist (Pohl) is notable in Germany. I'm saying weak keep because finding 3rd party sources specifically about Tumor proves to be quite difficult. Usually the band is only mentioned as an aside in articles about Pohl [64]. Everything else seems to come from their own label's website. (A label which appears to be run by... Pohl.)    SIS  21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting

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

Vague claims of notability, not supported by references. Essentially an elaborate advertisement page (db-spam was denied without prejudice). VasileGaburici (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn; term was used at least since the 80's in scholarly articles, so it seems a valid encyclopedic subject; oddly enough Wikipedia did not have an article on it. VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting attempts to be a higher-level theory page for PollyVote. But it mostly duplicates material from PollyVote, and the substantive references are subset of those from PollyVote. Given that User:Pollyvote created Political Forecasting, this shouldn't come as a surprise. A quick google search shows that "political forecasting" is practically a synonym for pollyvote. PollyVote is clearly a notable article, no issue there, but the attempt to present Political Forecasting as a genuine separate notion or theory is dubious at best. VasileGaburici (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant and unique information into the article on PolyVote (perhaps as a subsection with this article's title) -Markeer 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article lacks proper citations and is severely underdeveloped, but political forecasting is a legitimate area of academic study. A variety of major international organizations, including the United Nations, regularly publish political forecasts and there is a small, but very real, number of academics in universities around the US that would consider themselves to be political forecasters. I, myself, took a course on political forecasting in graduate school. As it stands, the article is crap, but the topic itself is notable and legitimate. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – More than enough Scholarly books on the subject matter, as shown here [65]] to establish a piece here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. or tending toward keep. Either way it's being kept. Consensus appears to be that it meets WP:MUSIC and issue of sock has apparently been clarified. TravellingCari 01:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Aquanettas

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

The article seems more like a personal memory history of a non-notable band by sock puppet Guitaro99 than a Wikipedia article. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#C1 since the band has not has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. -- -- Suntag ☼ 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Their Allmusic entry is one sentence long. No other sources found; only "references" are trivial or other Wikipedia articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wicki, at its core, is about users creating and maintaining entries. If you were to delete this band I would think "lets go on a rampage" and delete hundreds, if not thousands, of entries because a people have never heard of the band/artists/person. Actually the reason for deletion in itself seems like it is personal due to the comment: "personal memory history of a non-notable band by sock puppet." Name calling is not a reason for deletion. As for the band being "non-notable" the fact they have an entry in AMG is notable as many of the bands on Wicki do not. Also the band were on a major indy label (IRS) and they had a video on MTV and I am also sure that when they toured with Nine Inch Nails it was because they were so "non-notable".(Sarcasm intended) People tend to forget that in the wide scope of the world's history the internet is still a new thing and not every single printed resource is online. I know I read about the band in print, I know I reviewed and shot the band and that appeared in print and I know in order for the band to have been signed and toured in the first place there were articles in print on the band. Just because you can not find these online does not mean the band never received press. My vote: Do not delete.Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - external links look like good sources. The stub could be expanded easily. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs better sources, admittedly, but the subject appears to pass WP:MUSIC. Being included on the soundtrack of a Hal Hartley film gives it cred, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article. You can check the article history to verify this. I would also like to state I am not in any shape or form connected with sockpuppet Guitaro99. Admins are more than welcome to checkuser that. I concur with Suntag. The band isn't that notable. Soundvisions said: "If you were to delete this band I would think "lets go on a rampage" and delete hundreds, if not thousands, of entries because a people have never heard of the band/artists/person." You know that's the best thing that could happen to wikipedia right now. A big clean-up is in order. There are too many articles that are lowering the quality of this encyclopaedia. HelenWatt (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They may have been minor league but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia has many articles on bands of a similar ilk. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But if it stays, there are problems with tone, which I've marked. --Lockley (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know I already voiced my opinion however I also just updated the page and "brought it up to code" as it were. Still a work in progress however I found out the band was on the soundtrack to not one but two films as well as some other bits of info.Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Much improved, Soundvisions1, and now totally credible IMO. --Lockley (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable refs listed.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: soundvisions is right. Read that input. I saw a piece for Matt Lee (musician) get shot down ,even thought the artist IS NOTABLE AND GAVE REAL REFS.As good as or better than The Aquanettas. I hope that at least this will stay and offer people like Matt Lee the chance to stay too. There is a deleted page that needs some support under Matt Lee(musician) too.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's not on the bands part yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that suntag is one of the main people who fired off against the Matt Lee article.Go check the back pages. Some were deleted to cover -up the fact that an inside group played up against the article. They are not the sockpuppets of guitaro99.That never entered the question on this page EVER! Someone is lying. DO A CHECK ON THESE PEOPLE! They are mad at Matt Lee for some personal reason.Helen Watt is Deborah Schwartz of the Aquanettas,thus showing conflict of interest as she is the lead singer of the Aquanettas and has a personal stake here! There are sockpuppets on this site all over the place. Check them all out.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Looks reasonable enough; keep as meeting WP:MUSIC. To the anon above: please, for heaven's sake, don't start claiming that people are deleting articles because of personal bias. I've got the most recent deletion of the Matt Lee article, and I've never heard of the guy before that. Having said that, the Matt Lee comment in this article is uncited, and I've tagged it as such. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources to prove an entry on this band is encyclopedic. -Nard 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein's sixth album

AfDs for this article:
Rammstein's sixth album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete you know the drill. JuJube (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you bitch about "Himmel" and the tracklist, i removed the tracklist and renamed tha article --Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this speculation. Sourced info should be in the artist's article. Cliff smith talk 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Duplicate vote, struck by — Xy7 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)) if Metallica's Death Magnetic stayed as "Metallica's ninith studio album" for more than a year, this article should not be deleted. also there is no speculation. read the interview. --Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's true... Read the references... Painjoiker (talk) 13:44 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read the first sentence in WP:V: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Note that Deathmagnetic08 was the creator of this article, and watch for any more duplicate votes. — Xy7 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Legacy of the Aldenata. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fredericksburg (Posleen Invasion)

Battle of Fredericksburg (Posleen Invasion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a battle described in the 2001 novel Gust Front. A redirect or merge to Legacy of the Aldenata may be an option. maclean 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fictional feature of a fiction that is a red link. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no point in describing fictional events of novels that don't even have an article themselves. Not that many novels by John Ringo have articles (and those that have are plot summary only), so let's not start another bad article. – sgeureka t•c 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with sgeureka's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The place to merge would be to the series , Legacy of the Aldenata, since the individual novels do not have articles. DGG (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that material has been found with which the article can be improved. If an article can be improved, it should not be deleted but rather fixed. TravellingCari 01:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bair

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

Non-notable penciller and inker of comics. No awards, so it's hard to see how he would satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article isn't doing him any favours. A quick look around shows he has been working solidly in the industry since the mid-1980s and has a number of high profile books under his belt [66] [67]. It also appears he has been exclusive to DC for a while [68], which is quite a big deal, and that press release has a senior editor saying he is "one of DC's premiere inkers." Also this from Geoff Johns "Helping Johns rebuild life for the Hawks is the artistic team of Rags Morales and Michael Bair. 'They are the most underrated art team in the business," Johns said. "Their work is majestic, detailed and kinetic.'" (also here). Also Morales on Bair's inking (and if you read on you'll see how it is a true team effort with Bair deciding to go for Hawkman): "when I saw the magic that Michael Bair added to my work, I knew I had to stick with this dude" Also his earlier pencil work was well received working on Hellstrom, Vampirella (with Grant Morrison) and Daredevil, Gregory White on his Daredevil work "I don't think that story could have worked at all if it weren't for the terrific artwork of Michael Bair." Granted it can be difficult for pencilers turned inkers to make a big splash but Bair is one of the leading inkers in the business and has worked on a lot of the big name titles - see for example this article on his Identity Crisis work. I could go on but I think there is potential to improve the article and demonstrate the importance of his work. (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emperor. An artist need not be award-winning to be notable, and the sources found demonstrate that he is a significant figure in his field. --erachima talk 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Long career, big company (DC), important field, above average resumé. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can see how the subject meets notability, but there's just no worthwhile content in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment once the AfD is done I will be expanding it and adding in things I found while looking around - I just didn't want to put a lot of time into something that could disappear the next day (I don't have enough free time and plenty of other things to be doing). (Emperor (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That works for me. Good luck with its survival and your expansion of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, there is no content here at all. It is two sentences, which say, without evidence at all, that he's important and that he worked on this. Well, that's nice, but it can't be called a biography. Working on something is not sufficient. The guy who sweeps up the studio can't say that he "worked on 'Gone With the Wind'," can he, and get an article? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read any of the references provided above by User:Emperor? --erachima talk 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This article appears to be salvageable based on the sources provided within this discussion. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Based on creditable – reliable – certifiable – 3rd party sources as shown here [69]. ShoesssS Talk 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emperor's nice footwork. Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatório

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

Being Portuguese, I hate to see articles from my homeland deleted. However, I can make an exception here -- a garage band of no particular notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Sorry guys. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_23&oldid=1081071673"