Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 3

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Power Entertainment

Hi-Power Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small label, limited history and roster, been tagged for notability for a while and still no third party citation Mfield (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC) It is related to the Mr. Criminal and Mr._Capone-E articles which have their own similar issues. Mfield (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7; the article does not make any great pretense at notability and has no references outside of things published by the company itself. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this nearly 2 year old article with practically no independent reliable resources. Artene50 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. lifebaka++ 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helix of sustainability

Helix of sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Veiled spam for one company written by an

• • The page has now been edited to remove the name of a company using the concept, and the university department where the concept was invented. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not this is used by some company, it appears that the topic has at least some academic interest from its reference list. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL reveals that there are only nine Google hits for this term. There is one Google Books and two Google Scholar returns, but they are not independent of the aforementioned institute. Upon reading the article, nothing differentiates a "helix of sustainability" from Sustainability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I think one of your search hits is for http://www.natcapsolutions.org/HELIX.htm which does appear to be commercial consultancy and has no connection to the matter at hand Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality, not quantity - there are references from the journal of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, the European Science Foundation, and an international conference hosted by the Doshisha University - the papers clearly went through reputable review processes independent of WMG to be accepted for publication.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not all the articles appear to actually use the term. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • “Nature’s way – sustainable polymers and composites”, Materials World, October 2003 - page 33 - diagram and text Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • “Environmentally Friendly European Composites Workshop” European Science Foundation, April 2004 - Page 4 - text in section on education Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have reference 2 to hand, but will order it from the library and check Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reference 2 does contain both the text and diagrams on page 30 and 31 of the publication Qantenah (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this seems to be jargon coined to market a consulting firm, and not a serious intellectual concept. --Slashme (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept originated at the Warwick Manufacturing Group which is part of the school of engineering at the University of Warwick - not a commercial organisation Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concept itself has received no outside notice. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paragraph 2: Thought to be a sufficiently serious intellectual concept by a senior academic from
        Imperial College to be presented to a UK cabinet minister Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • See edit above - there was another mention in the original text, but I took it out as people seemed to think it was advertising. A google search for the phrase gives 66 hits. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, only 15 when Wikipedia is deducted and duplicates are allowed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, good catch, and agree. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notably distinct from simple circular concepts of recycling and there's enough
  WP:V in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It has sufficient info but does not seem particularly notable. It cannot be regarded as spam given the references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm quoting from another AfD; "...per
  WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." In this case there is no evidence of any use except by" K. Kirwan. "Also, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" applies here." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• First of all, thank you to
  Taylorism, Disneyfication and McDonaldization as examples of neologisms - words that didn't exist before that which they are used to describe. The problem with neologism is that with it we risk losing understanding - becoming like Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.") So no argument with discouraging the random use of made-up words at all. However it should be equally clear that neologism cannot be the same as using old established words to describe new things - or else "veiled spam", "guerilla spam" and equally "Helix of sustainability" and ultimately any writing on a recent subject will be effectively disallowed. So two choices really - wikipedia as an idea cemetery or wikipedia as a rapidly evolving definitive source. As a recent arrival I look forward to learning which it is.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Library

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

• Delete regretably. No independent reliable third party sources to establish its importance. Artene50 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important--see massive discussion threads in comp.lang.javascript that led to its development. Search for "Code Worth Recommending."

Furthermore, other libraries that are listed next to this one on DMOZ use browser sniffing and do not support XHTML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinsoft (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation is needed about the architecture. It is notable for several reasons. The library itself, as well as its online builder are unique developments in the world of browser scripting. Cinsoft (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reliable third party source: [1]

The author is respected in the JS community and much of the code and techniques discussed in the article are from My Library. It is credited as such. All of this may be a little hard to follow as Peter's "Code Worth Recommending" project is now defunct. All of the code that I added to it ended up in "My Library." Most of it was debated endlessly on comp.lang.javascript, which is the appropriate forum for such discussions. Cinsoft (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it does not in fact meet CFD A7, because A7 excludes software (among most other things). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon Kirtaran (talk • contribs)
• Delete I don't see any assertion of notability in the article, nor any reliable sources. The link posted by
  WP:RS). To be kept, this article will need to demonstrate that this software has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. That in turn is because Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information: we don't cover anything until reliable secondary sources have already done so. AndyJones (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note It could fall under CSD (clarify the S for the benefit of the article author) A7 because the article addresses the web content.Pedro :  Chat  18:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) refactored coment due to changes to the article against my memory of what it was when I AFD'd it. Apologies. [reply]

Okay, so I don't have to deal with CFD A7 (?) The assertion of notability is that it is the only library of the dozen or so listed in DMOZ and the Google directory that is competently written and future proof (no browser sniffing is the main point.) The people who write about browser scripting do so in blogs. Then there are the thousands of articles in comp.lang.javascript that went into the creation of this code. (Most of) it has been discussed to death by the very people who are most qualified to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinsoft (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Added more links to outside material. Checked other libraries (e.g. Mootools) with similar Wiki pages and they have no outside articles either. The difference is that nobody in the know would recommend the code in Mootools. On the contrary, much of the code in My Library came about due to the "Code Worth Recommending" project in comp.lang.javascript. You won't find a more reliable source on the state of browser scripting.[reply]

I'd be glad to audit all of the JavaScript-related material in here. Much of it that relates to the much-vilified libraries reads like an advertisement. There is little insight to be had about browser scripting from these pages. Cinsoft (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be added as well for many of the same reasons (number one it is competently written code.) Fork JavaScript It appears that most journalists do not follow cutting edge browser scripting developments. Unless editors wish to wade through hundreds of discussion threads in comp.lang.javascript, there is no way to make the call on which are significant and which are not. Likewise, there is no way to know that much of what is written about JavaScript libraries in the blogs is parroted hyperbole with no reasoned debate to back it up. Cinsoft (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are no reliable sources about this library. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many people on the planet are reliable sources on the topic of browser scripting libraries? The answer is: not many. Certainly I am one of them and I can tell you that junk like MooTools, jQuery, etc. needs to be counterbalanced here. Nobody with a minimum clue would use those libraries. The entries for those read like infomercials. There is nothing to set them apart from each other either. Cinsoft (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the status of other articles isn't really relevant to this discussion. See

conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus (after discounting the canvassed newbie opinions) is that he does not currently have coverage that is quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to meet

The Southern Avenger

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

Procedural nom; this has been speedied three times (by three different admins) in the last 10 days, so bringing it over to get a consensus; is it a) a viable stub, in which case we can leave it alone, or b) something deletable, in which case we can from now on

• No Delete- The person in question has a listening audience, viewership and readership from further reaching localities than just Charleston, SC. This meets the requirements as stated in
  WP:BIO.The Kaleb (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete- Doesn't seem notable to me.
  Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The top hits on google were: his blog, his myspace account, his youtube account, photos of him with a scantily-clad model. This guy has the notability of a 15 year old! An article in a college newspaper (even the Crimson) doesn't establish notability and the only thing popularizing him is his use of internet sites (such as Wikipedia) and the local newspaper as platforms for his controversial views. Themfromspace (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er – did you actually read the nom? – 
    iridescent 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Not Delete- His notability includes nationwide listenership and newspaper articles being written about him in places far away from South Carolina, meeting Basic Criteria per
  Charleston City Paper or WTMA. --Filthy swine (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What specific notable content do you propose be merged? If it has yet to be written, as seems to be the case, why not just write it in one of those articles in the first place? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Rockwell has posted his articles, and is even listed as the first source on the

• • Comment Please explain in more detail which criteria in
    WP:BIO he meets. One college newspaper interview that glosses over his politics is not substantial enough to establish notability. He is not widely recognized as a newspaper columnist or as a political commentator in any of the respective communities. He needs more significant coverage. The Avenger is already mentioned in the Charleston City Paper article, any more attention to him would unbalance the article. Themfromspace (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep The subject appears to have a notability which has garnered some National attention. There seems to be an opportunity to explore the sources available before reaching a final decision on removal. --Stormbay (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no national attention. Could you please provide links? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be gaining popularity in alternative media (I'm not a fan but...). There was a recent Wake-Up-America [2] appearance which would be national in that category. I feel that this type of media coverage seems generally widely accepted in Wikipedia and this subject seems to be made an exceptiom to that trend. Either way, delete or keep, this subject has adequate media coverage to deserve a fair hearing. --Stormbay (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This continues to qualify for CSD A7; the only thing which even seems to imply notability are the links, which fail to do so (as established at
  WP:BIO in which interviews and articles in student papers et cetera are not generally criteria). Also, having property destroyed because you made someone angry does not make you notable. This discussion is a good idea so we can salt. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I moved two newspaper articles to the References section. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) appears to be a reliable source. As for the Harvard Crimson, I think its coverage in this case contributes toward establishing notability. A student newspaper's coverage of (say) on-campus parking problems can be dismissed as trivial, but its coverage of an off-campus entertainer who presumably has nothing to do with Harvard is another matter. Even so, The Post and Courier's coverage is arguably substantial on its own. Whether this person believes what heavays is behind the point. He is an entertainer who has been written about in some depth by other media, and that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Post and Courier is not a reliable source because it is not independant of the subject matter. The Southern Avenger is a columnist for that paper and the paper pays him to write for them. Of course he would show up in the paper, thats what he gets paid for.
• Comment Rebuttal He does not work for the Post and Courier. He works for The Charleston City Paper.--Filthy swine (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, being covered by a local paper is not significant media coverage. He would require significant media coverage from a national paper. He does not get significant regional coverage for local notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yet again. As I noted when I deleted it before. No significant improvement since then. No significant independent sourcing. No assertion of notability. No significant media coverage. A couple of mentions by local papers is not significant. A review by media right there in Chraleston, South Carolina. Google search shows one blog hit and one dead link for "Jack The Southern Avenger Hunter" Google news gets two Post and Courier hits. Nothing at Google Scholar. An interview with The Harvard Crimson does not count as significant media coverage.. Dlohcierekim 13:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DON'T Delete Jack is gaining popularity on Youtube and is discussed in the radio industry. —Preceding
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

Here is a new source, The American Conservative: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/21/summer-break/

Tell me that's not notable.--Filthy swine (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread the notability, verifiability and reliable sources guidelines. It's a blog, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18

46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The American Conservative is not a blog. --Filthy swine (talk) 18

57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, it says right in the link, "/blog/". Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this entry is not about him. It's telling us about a coming piece from him about someone else. In other words, The American Conservative is letting us know about a future appearance of his work. This is not the same as a reliable, verifiable source writing about him. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although not frequently(and tough to recover), some of his pieces have been referenced on Patrick J. Buchanan's official website, as well as by Richard Spencer in TakiMag's "Sniper's Tower" blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been proven. As a good wikipedian, I have never and shall never start a frivolous article. Check the articles started by me in my contributions record. I move that discussion be closed and the article removed from the list of articles for deletion.--Filthy swine (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the only article you've ever started. – 

iridescent 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fry Street Fair. For a couple. The burden of proof is not on me. Nothing less than good faith can be shown when I start an article. I have a proven record of only starting notable articles. A small record, but indeed enough over a length of time to show a trend.--Filthy swine (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Do Not Delete- notariety has been proven. If the Southern Avengers article is deleted it will undoubtably be done out of spite and hatred for South Carolina, its people, and its culture. —Preceding
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
  • That's us told. – 
    iridescent 21:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment. Local newspapers are generally reliable sources. They can sometimes be lazy or reluctant to criticize local politicians or businesses, but in general they are reliable. While coverage in a national newspaper is helpful, it is not required. Similarly, campus newspapers are generally reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, the problem is that's all the subject seems to have very little local coverage and a mention in a college mag. This does not rise to the level of "significant media coverage" needed to claim notability. No national media. No claim to "household name status". No books about him. No scholarly essays or journals. We sometimes confuse these two issues. We can have all kinds of verifiable information about a subject that only establishes a lack of notability. Also, it can be very hard to find verifiable, reliable sources about subjects that are really notable. Such are the joys and sorrows of encyclopedists.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly a notable paleoconservative. You do not subscribe to that ideology, that is fine. But there is no sense in leading a one man crusade against someone that is clearly notable in his field.--Filthy swine (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 unbiased notable, sources have been cited as giving information about the subject, and at least 4 proving the subjuect's notability. There is no audience count assigned to the definition of notability. And as about the subject's importance, the subject is important as one of the few paleoconservative voices left. Paleoconservative commentary is not broadcast nationwide via the air waves or print. It is generally locally oriented. But the articles written and opinion expressed are shared throughout the national community of paleoconservatism.--Filthy swine (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete- The Southern Avenger is a notable commentator and spokesman for paleoconservatism. SpencerCS (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes there is
  canvassing going on. A comment on the Southern Avenger's blog [3] has urged people to come here and vote against the deletion. Not that I'm pointing fingers at anyone here for doing this... Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The comment on http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/08/04/alexander-solzhenitsyn-1918-2008/#comments is clearly

Hanlon's Razor--Filthy swine (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep and Rename From what I observe, he seems noteworthy, but the name of the article should reflect his real name, not his pseudonym.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I second.--Filthy swine (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To what, though? Jack Hunter(columnist), Jack Hunter(radio)--Filthy swine (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go radio, unless we can find his middle name, which would be preferable.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yet another "famous for what?" YouTube "celebrity" of no importance to anyone. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States,

neoconservative philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthy swine (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Filthy swine (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Depth of coverage in secondary sources is insubstantial. His commentary may be entertaining, but that does not make it notable. If other local hosts each had a paragraph in the WTMA article, then this would probably warrant placement/merging there. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the other local hosts, so the writing of their articles is your burden. Personal responsibility. I am not from Charleston, let alone South Carolina. So if it makes no sense to write about the Southern Avenger on the WTMA article for the lack of the other hosts' notability, then it stands that a separate article must be maintained for Jack Hunter for the sake of his apparent notability. --Filthy swine (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the evidence, a minor commentator of no significance, trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. DGG (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; minor local coverage does not notability make. Far below the threshold of
  WP:BIO; warrants a short paragraph at WTMA at best. — Coren ^(talk) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Non-trivial coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject provide plenty of verifiable information for the article. Seems notable to me. DickClarkMises (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on its current state as I look at it. The first two references, to the Post & Courier and Harvard Crimson, seem to establish notability to our standards at
  WP:BIO. Don't think it needs renamed either, unless it can be demonstrated that "The Southern Avenger" is not the name by which he's best known. --DeLarge (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Delete, lacks the "significant coverage" or "multiple independent sources"
  WP:BIO demands. Google News search brings up articles 2 primary sources and nothing else.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Appears delete arguments have been invalidated by charting of the song. lifebaka++ 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend Like That

Friend Like That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable song. Declined prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable song, by a notable band. This single received significant airplay on radio as well. Current article is very stubbish, but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's creator is a genre troll, by the way. Keeps changing genres without consensus to suit his POV. If the song hasn't charted then it shouldn't be here. Delete.
  Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think every music related article on wikipedia is bothered by genre trolls. this is not a reason to delete --T-rex 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I can't see anything about "significant airplay". Punkmorten (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I'm in the process of improving the article and adding references. I think this song does assert notability, since it has received some
  reliable coverage and charted within its genre, I believe. This might not turn out to be true, but I'll see what I can do with adding sources and info about notability. Jamie^☆S93 15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Done. I believe the song's notability is now established with the addition of chart info and referencing. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'm relisting the article due to the addition of references. Wizardman 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The song meets
  WP:MUSIC guidelines in that it charted and, although it is on a more niche chart, got all the way to #3. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Kwantlen Polytechnic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This minor college or university certainly exists in Canada, but it is not located in Vancouver or Burnaby where all the major Universities are to be found. The article here on this educational institution has become a battleground between editors who employ tags questioning its neutrality, inferior quality and suggesting that it uses 'weasel words.' I don't think the administrators who run this college would appreciate this Wikipedia page on them and neither would I. A high school graduate would think twice before enrolling here with this web page. I suggest it either be improved in the next 5 days or be nuked. (so that someone else can rewrite it in a more appropriate

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy Keep as these aren't valid reasons for a nomination, let alone a deletion. Dalejenkins | 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This is a joke right? Whether or not a university is 'minor' is not up to you to determine and Wikipedia is not a show-casing for administrators or potential students. These are not valid reasons for an AfD and I will alert admin to close this down. As an editor of all BC Universities/Colleges wiki pages, I actually find the comment rather insulting and ill informed.--Cahk (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would you enroll in this 'University' when the editors are all accusing each other of bias? I would be scared off. This article needs major cleaning up or be deleted. No administrator at the institute would appreciate what Wikipedia's article on them has become! Artene50 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is actually getting silly - if you are truly looking for admission info, the last thing you look at is Wikipedia... Once again, Wikipedia did not establish itself to please anyone or any institution. If someone doesn't like it, they are free to edit the article themselves. I agree it needs some re-write, but AfD? Either you don't understand how Wiki works or you are using the wrong method of getting improvement.--Cahk (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When a tag on the the subject article says "This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information," one wonders which section of this article is verifiable and which is false. I don't know who placed the tag here but it must be profoundly disturbing to the administrators who run this place. Artene50 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It begs to question of you are one of the said administrator? Tags are placed so Wiki editors can improve on an article. If every article that gets tagged be AfD, you will see massive backlog on Wikipedia. If you don't like what you see now and thinks you can improve it, then be bold. --Cahk (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I am not an administrator or employee of this place, wherever it is in Canada. I just don't know why there are so many tags questioning the article itself--and that is what concerns me. What would an employer who is thinking of hiring a graduate from this place think after reading Wikipedia's page on the University? Maybe someone who knows this place can be bold but I can't since I don't know it. The article does not do credit to this place sadlyArtene50 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Artene50: If an employer who truly cares about the quality of his/her employees comes to Wikipedia for information, I would question if you really want to work with that company.... It all spins back to: That's not Wikipedia is for.--Cahk (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep University. Clean-up concerns should be discussed at talk page not AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per
  Townlake (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Notice The user who pasted the 'weasel words' tab, GreenJoe, here: [4] has now retired. Since no one can divine his concerns, I have removed the weasel template from this institute's Wikipedia article. I now formally ask an Admin to please close my nomination for deletion ASAP. Hopefully someone can address the quality concerns in this article. Artene50 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't take his user page too literally and instead, look at his contribution (July 18) as oppose to 'retired' on user page (June 22).--Cahk (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since he hasn't recently cited his concerns on this article's talkpage since August 2007 (1 whole year), I think it best to just close this AfD. No one can take seriously a person who claims he is retired on his User page but still edits anyway. Artene50 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggy Lichman

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

Fails

• Keep Looks like there is enough media coverage to justify an article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Per
  WP:BIO per the references therein. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Cordova

D.C. Cordova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Main claim to notability appears to be as CEO of an organization whose article was AfDed because it was deemed non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money & You). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I added two references. The Money magazine article mentions that an Australian TV news magazine called Four Corners aired a report on Money and You which "nearly killed" Money & You in Australia. I suspect that Cordova and Money & You are both notable but should be treated with caution because of the issues brought up on the TV program. --Eastmain (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two of the sources were advertisements. The legit article is a trivial mention. I don't like our chances of finding a non-trivial secondary source. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - CEO of a nn corp --T-rex 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - no deletes other than nominator, and one of the articles nominated is a good article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (Doctor Who)

Ace (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The following characters have no out-of-universe notability. Most of the articles cite no sources. If they do, their only sources are primary (

Miranda (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Dodo Chaplet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Peri Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Adric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Donna Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Astrid Peth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ian Chesterton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Susan Foreman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jo Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zoe Heriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ben Jackson (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Tegan Jovanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kamelion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Sara Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leela (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jamie McCrimmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Katarina (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Adam Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete then Dalejenkins | 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is such a ridiculous proposal it's beyond AGF and into simple vandalism. Keep, Revert, Block, Ban, Exterminate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how do the articles pass

WP:V? Exactly. Dalejenkins | 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Appears to be a bad faith nomination in order to prove a
  talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Totally untrue. If you had READ that page, you'd see that I was against those deletions. However, I support these deletions. Dalejenkins | 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that page. I see you supporting a group of articles, using the existence of similar DW articles to support their inclusion. The nominator there suggested the DW articles should similarly go and you have nominated them - in order, I suspect, to illustrate the fallacy of his argument.

talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the nom is essentially attempting to make a

WP:WAX. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:SNOWBALL Keep. Over half these articles are very well sourced. Astrid Peth is even a Good Article. Donna Noble has received considerable press coverage. I could go on... Fact is, each of these articles need to be assessed on their own, and not in a group nomination. This should be snowballed. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Nominator may have a point about individual articles, but this scatter-gun approach is excessive and it is unreasonable to nominate and expect a considered evaluation of them all at once. Anyway, I'd say merge rather than delete. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  List of minor Doctor Who companions. Weak Keep on all I didn't mention. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holstein Artificial Insemination Bulls

List of Holstein Artificial Insemination Bulls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned, reference- and link-free article of no conceivable encyclopedic use, created by seller of one of the products and already blocked as spammer. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP. Calton | Talk 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not support this article to be deleted, because it supports a part of the history of Artificial insemination in the Holstein breed.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are more appropriate places for this sort of information. DGG (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought when I read the AFD, that I would be supporting based on "not paper". However, as interesting as the list might be, I think the thing is more a vehicle for promoting an outside entity. It would seem to in fact lack verifiable third party sourcing. Not usre what claim to notability there might be.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even allowing for "not paper", there is enough information in
  Holstein (cattle)#Genetics. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This information is completely useless. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Shock, Music Video

Future Shock, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Music videos belong on the pages for the songs themselves. They do not deserve their own article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also separate pages for music videos, where pages for the related songs already exist.

Against The Wind, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Black Diamond, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Kiss Of Judas, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S.O.S, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Million Light years Away, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hunting High And Low, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eagleheart ,Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Walk To My Own Song, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maniac Dance, Music Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all. The music videos never require their own pages. This info is best suited for each song's page, and would seem an unlikely redirect term, so don't even bother merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nomination and TPH ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge each video article with the related song article. Delete if the song article does not exist.
  talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all per
  WP:MUSIC#Songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esradekan (talk • contribs
  )
• Delete all per nominator, there is nothing here worth merging. JBsupreme (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or delete As per SWik78's suggestion above, merge them to their song articles if existing, maybe create song articles if song + video fulfill notability criteria, delete everything else So#Why ^{review me!} 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - delete all across the board not notable.^MY♥_INchile 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost none of these have any viable information. JuJube (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If there was any content (preferrably WP:reliably sourced content, bu I'll settle for "unverified but verifiable") beyond the cookie-cutter of "Name is Stratovarius' nth video released in year through the label Nuclear Blast" followed by a list of band members, I would happily support a merge and redirect to the article on the relevant song, or failing that, the relevant album. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the point in time I write this, and as the article titles are unlikely to be plausible search terms, I say delete. -- saberwyn

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, due to the lack of singificant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Plume

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

The article is full of inside jokes and little actual content. Yes, he hosts two podcasts and edits SModcast, but I do not believe that that makes him notable enough. The article cites NO sources to verify the subject's notability, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I take that back. He only hosts ONE podcast. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He hosts two pocasts. I think that if someone is going to try and sabotoge Ken Plumes Wikipedia page, they should at least have all of their information correct. If Rwiggum would get his facts straight, he would realize that Ken Plume has been noted on Kevin Smith's Pocast, Smodcast, as the facts being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.197.201 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — 210.233.197.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you notice, at the time I nominated the article for AfD, the page only listed him as hosting ONE podcast. The second one was added after I posted this. Please stop accusing me of "sabotaging" an article. Please read
  WP:CIVIL to understand Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Considering he set up a major site, is running a major site, works for a major podcast and hosts two of his own. I think you might just be a very bitter man to try and delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment If you were to read WIkipedia's
  WP:BIO, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." With that in mind, nearly all of the sources provided are rendered invalid, as they are all either from Quickstopentertainment.com, re-posts of articles he has done, or press releases. IMDB does not prove notability, either. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment If examples of his work, press releases, and examples from "other websites than quickstopentertainment" (for example, IMDB) do not count as sources for proof of Mr. Plume's notability, than what does? What exactly is your issue with Ken Plume sir?--ZBarclay (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)— ZBarclay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't see a single "inside joke" in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.88.93 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — 68.193.88.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Rwiggum, I see no reason why Mr. Plume should be deprived of his wikipedia entry, and I can't understand in the least why you seem to have taken such a personal interest in making sure that he is. The page is not "full", as you say, of inside jokes, it contains only facts about Mr. Plume and the various projects that he is involved in. May I ask if getting this taken down is really worth the effort that you're putting into it? I'm sure there are much more questionable articles you could be worrying yourself about. Good day.JamesYates (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to All I'm unsure as to why everyone seems to think I am "attacking" Mr. Plume. I am a huge SModcast fan, and I do appreciate the work that he puts into the show. However, that appreciation is separate of Wikipedia. He simply has not done enough to be considered "notable". Again, many of the inside jokes were removed after this initial post (however, the last time I checked the "musical talent" section was still there, and has no encyclopedic merit.) Examples of his work do not prove a subject's notability. What DOES prove a subject's notability is significant coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. For instance, if there have been articles written about him, that would work. However, an article written about SModcast that mentions him will not count, since it is about the show and not Ken. There are plenty of podcast hosts who do not have their own page, and again, simply having a relation with Kevin Smith does not make Ken Plume notable. If everyone would just read
  WP:BIO, then a lot of your questions would be answered. Oh, and just because there are "much more questionable articles" does not mean that this article should not be deleted, it's a straw man argument Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per Rwiggum and the fact that notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems that the argument has become circular in nature. Simply restating yourself repeatedly does not make your point valid. I will respond specifically to the statement that an article that mentions Plume's association with Smodcast does not constitute notoriety. That statement is false and invalid. It directly shows his notoriety by showing that he has enough involvement in said project to be mentioned, thus showing proof that he is integral to it's existance, ergo, it is a "notable" statement. It is a third party article, showing Plume's involvement with a project. Don't be petty, it's a valid source. --ZBarclay (talk) — ZBarclay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete as per Rwiggum. - TexMurphy (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both
  WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant or independent sources to establish notability. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Case has been made several times that his relation to Dana Snyder, Doc Hammer and Kevin Smith do not make Ken notable, and that is a fair argument and I don't disagree with this. However, what has not been addressed is how someone who is a famous interviewer, someone who created IGN Filmforce, someone who is the head of a popular website, someone who heads almost every Venture Brothers panel at conventions and someone who hosts two very popular podcasts isn't notable. Once you answer that for me, I'll have no issue with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, primarily because there are no reliable, third-party sources to verify any of that. Plus, heading up panels at conventions isn't notable, and heading up QSE isn't, in itself, notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I seem to be missing even an assertion of notability. I see a lack of significant media or literary coverage. No enduring contribution or award. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doing something that no one else does, i.e. being the one and only person to hold said position is the very definition of notable. --ZBarclay (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard. I think you need to read

WP:BIO a bit more closely. Being unique need not make one encyclopedic. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Ken Plume is half of the Ken P.D. Snydecast, one of the best, in my humble opinion, podcasts out there. He founded IGN.com, he edits Quickstop Entertainment. He's done voice work for cartoons. Why is someone targeting Ken for all of this? Too much free time? Knock it off and leave Ken Plume alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that he did NOT, in fact, found IGN.com. Also, the quality of his work does not denote notability, reliable sources do. This article has been nominated for WELL over a week now, and yet none have been provided. That seems telling. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted by User:L'Aquatique. Non-admin closure. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake ID (band)

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

Seems to be a non-notable band failing

• Delete Non-notable, non-verifiable band. No reliable sources to be seen. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Non-notable, non-verifiable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 No assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Speedily deleted under A7. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article faisl the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane lawless

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

Diane Lawless is a local community organizer and candidate for a municipal council office. Candidates for local office are rarely notable -- the article makes few other assertions of notability beyond helping to get legislative bills passed as a lobbyist or legislative director, and assisting on other political campaigns. The article is largely sourced to either her website or a Kentucky election website, and the only external link is a link to her campaign website. I don't see the notability and prominence for a Wikipedia article. ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the user who proposed this page for deletion, it was only created a few hours ago and some sourcing is still taking place. As far as the notability of Diane Lawless, the political apathy that pervades American culture may preclude local politicians from becoming household names but in no way mitigates their important status in communities. Ideally, individuals would feel personally connected enough with their communities and the future of those communities to promote informed voting on the local level as well as the state and national levels. State politicians are rarely covered outside of their own media markets - I find the commentary on the locations of the sources irrelevant. Jmv719

Strong Delete. Wikipedia has an important policy called

Reliable sources. The only other sites are one that has a page for every candidate, which doesn't mean notability, and a blog. There is literally 0 notability or sources of it on this article. I'm sure Diane is a great lady and a resource to her community, but just because someone is a nice person doesn't mean they need their own Wikipedia article. --mboverload@ 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. The article cannot be moved to Diane Lawless which I suspect is because the latter has been deleted a couple of times already. I might be wrong. But I can't get to the deletion log. The upper-case just redirects to this page if I type it in the search box. But the foregoing redlink looks ok. Weird. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I do not know nearly as much about Wikipedia article creation as you. I am, however, a big supporter of grassroots politics, and I hate to see Wikipedia discouraging that in its policies about notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv719 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Political activities seem to fall below the threshold and I am always suspicious about anything from an
  SPA. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An IP user blanked the page about 14 hours ago. I've reverted back to a prior version so the debate can continue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails
  the village pump for policy or the talk page for the relevant guideline. However, the policy as it stands says this should be deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. Diane Lawless gets some local
  WP:RS coverage as an activist, but it's all from the same newspaper for the same issue. Getting elected could put her over the top. But short of that, notability is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are free to think the policy should be changed - I am drawing up some ideas to change some policies, too. That doesn't mean I get to violate them in the meantime. Wikipedia is not a promotion machine or a research tool for small-time candidates in local races. Wikipedia isn't a polictial message board for your use. She already has her own blog and website to promote herself and get her ideas and credentials out there. She does not need Wikipedia. I do not see your motive here. Just because someone has an article on Wikipedia doesn't make them "special" or any more fit for office. People Google candidate names, not Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the consensus of the group. I am not trying to show bias towards Diane Lawless and I am not trying to advance her political agenda, but the political process as a whole. I really do deeply believe in local politics and their importance, and I would love to provide more easily accessible information to local voters. In the meantime, I agree that my posting of this article was misinformed and largely due to my inexperience as a Wikipedia contributor. I am blanking the article of my own accord and withdraw it as a submission; I will use the proper channels to fight this battle and I do not want to present the appearance of imbalance. Jmv719 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv719 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Colony

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

Advertising for a non-notable space advocacy organization, with no third party links and no assertion of notability (unless the largest database of Mars colony-related articles is notable.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I sympathize with their goals, there are no sources cited and all I could find were articles about communist settlements...
  talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless referenced, although I'm the one who denied the speedy requests on it. I see nothing to indicate that this is anything more than a couple of hobbyists with a server in the basement; neither the
  iridescent 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A note to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: Traffic does not confer

Discipline (World of Darkness)

Discipline (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no sources independent of White Wolf to demonstrate

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation (World of Darkness)

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage by
  WP:GAMEGUIDE material as well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This article isn't substantiated by reliable
  NOT a place to reproduce content from game rule books, and it should not be allowed to become that. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete —
  MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note — Article has been flagged for rescue.
  MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to notability to a real world audience and verifiability. I cannot imagine any reason why at worst this article wouldn't be redirected with the non-hoax, non-libelous edit history intact. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
  Tally-ho! 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep due to the fact the article World of Darkness is long (and can be even longer, since the recption is not mentioned in detail) and this set of RPG games has complicated settings not able to be fully described in one article. Japanese Wikipedia also often separates fictional characters, organisations, places or objects from the main fictional work article swhen the articles are too full and everything except common sense to their fans is verifiable, so we should not delete this kind of articles just due to "non-notability" or "99% in-universe". --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to delete because it's mostly in-universe material (as I pointed out in my argument), but I am arguing to delete for non-notability. If we don't delete things for that reason, what other reason do we appeal to here? Notability is the standard that's been established, and this article doesn't demonstrate it. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete CSD G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Planet Quest

Nicktoons: Planet Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Video game that supposedly stars a whole bunch of Nicktoons. Can't find any sources to prove that game exists and the style of writing and the implausibility of the idea (that many Nicktoons crossing over like that?) makes me think this is just a hoax or at least some fanboy's idea that they want to post on Wikipedia because they think it's "cool". NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Totally implausible. Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had to remove a mention of this from the freaking Invader Zim article. May I never have to touch that article again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment. A google search seems to point to this game not existing. However, I also wanted to comment on your assertion that that many Nicktoons characters could cross over in one video game, when in fact it has been done many times before in games like Nicktoons Racing and Nicktoons: Attack of the Toybots. (And trust me, there are more; I used to work in a GameStop, and there are loads of them). So While it is apparent that the game does not exist, just don't rush to the conclusion that something like this is "totally implausible". Remember, they're selling to kids. They're going to shove as many characters in there in order to appeal to as many kids as possible. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this is only a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spill the Beans

Spill the Beans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

Delete -- already have a Wiktionary entry on this. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Subtle phrase etymology might be handy on Wikipedia but I am considoring just redirecting it to the Wiktionary entry instead. Delete I suppose WikiDict. is sufficient. --

(mailbox) 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Dicdef. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  WP:NOTADICTIONARY --T-rex 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per above, anyone looking to understand the meaning of this term would probably look to a dictinary before coming to Wikipedia. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Maruna

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

No notability established. Only books he authored are published by Swamp Gas Books, which this page says is his own self-published imprint and website. Only sources of information are individual's own website and a website that verifies only that he is a high school teacher, which certainly do not meet Wikipedia standards on notability. Only two editors(

• Delete. No reliable sources, does not assert notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found this item reviewing one of his books. But that's it. One single book review in a small weekly paper with a circulaion of 30K isn't enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion for a merger can be done at the article's talk page. lifebaka++ 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje Shugden controversy

Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article title is prima-facie evidence of being a POV fork. A quick view of the article confirms it. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable information into main article, instruct editors there that controversy cannot be a separate article, as that violated NPOV policy on handling the topic fairly all in one place. If the info in this fork was largely POV and was removed for being POV from the main article (if that's what it is) they need to understand it suddenly does not become not a NPOV violation by being on another article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'. These are two separate topics. There is more to Dorje Shugden than just this current controversy. To say they should be merged into one article would be to say there is no Dorje Shugden other than this controversy. It would be a POV fork only if it was one article 'pro-Dorje Shugden' and the other 'anti-Dorje Shugden'. This is not the case. Instead, both articles have both POV.

It should also not be merged because the article as it stands is already monstrously long. What needs to happen is it needs to be massively cut down to the core issues. The last thing we need to do is make the article even longer and more unreadable. Who but the most die hard will wade through the article as it stands.

There are many valid reasons for keeping this article. 1. It is discussing an issue that has been described by many researchers as the biggest controversy in Tibetan Buddhism today. 2. This issue is of particular importance this year due to the increased actions against DS practitioners in India and the resulting protests. So it is a topical issue. 3. Wikipedia is an ideal forum for discussing this because it forces both sides in the debate to 'find common ground', instead of further radicalization. In this way, it accomplishes an important social function of promoting reconcilation. 4. The only reason why these articles keep coming up for deletion is one side or another doesn't like the contents of it. If somebody doesn't like the contents of the article then they should go to the talk pages, explain what they want to change, justify their changes and then make the changes. THen through dialogue and negotiation we change the article. 5. The real problem here is some people have not accepted the fact that Wikipedia is 'an encylopedia' and not 'an ideological battleground'. Our job here is to write an informative encylopedia article which presents both sides of the controversy so that somebody who is unaware of this issue can become better informed. If we all agree on this goal, we can write an article. But as long as extremist editors come on here and try to sabotage or use Wikipedia as a battleground for advancing their own agenda, we will keep having to waste our time with these silly games (like this deletion request). I think we all have better things to do with our lives than engage in such games. So lets agree that our goal is to write an informative encylopedia article, work together to write one, and then go back to our families (or direct our attention to other articles). Please, accept what Wikipedia is (an encylopedia) and what it isn't (a battleground) and work in harmony with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. --Dspak08 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'." That's pretty much the definition of a content-based POV fork right there. Controversy that can be sourced with reliable sources and presented in a NPOV way (so as not to give undue weight) should be on the main page. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a keeper to me. It's very heavily sourced, and far too long to merge back into the main article without weighing it down. (That isn't by itself a pro-forkery comment, by the way, I'd make the same objection if someone proposed that
  WP:SS which says (I'm paraphrasing) that if an aspect of a subject gets too big for the parent article you break it out into another article. Those alleging POV-fork don't seem to have explained, above, what POV they think this article is pushing, as distinct from the POV (or NPOV) of the main article. If someone can do that I may reconsider my !vote. AndyJones (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep It's not ideal, but who has a better idea for how to handle this? It certainly isn't a POV fork and, given the rancour around the issue in general, it's commendably neutral. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per both Andies. Sourced, NPOV, and a legitimate spinoff that keeps the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, the controversy could probably be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. More importantly, this version is irredeemably POV. Just look at the "Arguments for and against the practice" section, for instance - one doesn't write an encyclopedia article like that. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the controversy could probably be summarized in a couple of paragraphs
Please do so! I'd love to read it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some form of sense and structure is put in place. The whole tone of the article is just suspect too. Manderiko (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definately too much information in the controversy to absorb into a general article on Dorje Shugden. The controversy background should also be addressed seperately from the deity itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.201.246 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Controversy is quite important in the Tibetan Buddhist community. It is not confined to Dorje Shugden alone but has wider implications, e.g. regarding the history of and the attitude towards the New Kadampa Tradition. The article on the NKT links here. The information on the controversy can not be integrated in the article on the NKT and also not in that on Dorje Shugden. A seperate article is fully justified. Andi 77.24.174.253 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadmoon

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

Created with the description "meets criteria 1, 5" - presumably a reference to

Note: logs appear to show this was deleted on 1 August following

talk) 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep (1a) Resistance Records is the notable publisher for their magazine Resistance Urho was also interviewed by Wotansvolk who has a strong presence in the black metal scene on and off line.
• Delete The Tripod site is not a reliable source, nor is the blog. The albums were limited releases on an apparently non-notable label, so I have no reason to believe they meet any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sources have been updated; labels after releases were added
• Delete for failing criteria for MUSIC notability, and quite spectacularly failing it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet critereon 1, nor critereon 5 of
  WP:MUSIC. No non-trivial, independant, reliable sources and label "Desastrious Records" does not even have a page, let alone it being notable (in fact it spells "Disastrous" wrong). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Desastrious Records is notable in the black metal scene (whose main site is unfortunately down at the moment). And yes, that is how they spell it. But here are some other sites that reference them: Geocities, Discogs, Crionic Mind posting in regards to Desastrious hosted black metal festival in Dallas, TX, Spirit of metal.

None of those are

reliable sources. And please sign your posts. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Sorry, but the coverage and releases are insufficient to keep.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Matthews

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

The fourth recreation of a speedied non-

• Pretty clear delete in my opinion. Sources don't meet reliability standards. Maybe once the movie comes out (assuming it does, many never do) he'll have sources and can be listed then. Until then no way. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources for notability.--Boffob (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Individual is a signed model and an actor offered two roles in two movies. Two media junkets referred to him as "Hollywood's Next 'It Boy'." He is also modeling with celebrity photographers and has been approached for deals with notable, top tier clothiers and began a production company, Foresight Media Group, Inc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    People Magazine
    .
• Strong Delete. Article reads like a vanity page for a non-notable model. The sources provided are either extremely short articles with only a passing mention of the subject, or a re-print of a press release (not to mention the dead link). Clear delete. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He will be in 2 movies -- how many have you been in? And Reuters had two press releases about him -- how many have you been in? I'm not trying to attack you -- I haven't been in any myself, either! But he has, so just because there is a dead link doesn't mean that he's no notable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword there is "will". That brings up a clear violation of

WP:SELFPUB. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your

WP:Crystal

clearly states:

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

The writer/producer Metcalf has been tied to this actor and the film is in preproduction as of the date of the citation. A movie will be notable once it comes out, so verifiable anticipation is clearly not a violation, despite your assertions to the contrary -- please reverse your stance. The citations that were so unjustly deleted were not substantiating notability -- Hollywood Reporter is substantiating notability, and the others are being used to substantiate assertions made by the sentences they followed, before they were so unfairly removed. This so controversial, that there must be 5 independant, third party sources -- one large source is enough to substantiate notability. Then there are press release sites and the other sources which were, once again, so unjustly removed. Mostbeautifulman.com is independant and third party -- Jordan Matthews neither works for or with the editors of the website. Your unilateral deletion of independant, third party sources is unwarranted, belligerant and contrary to Wikipedia policy -- you are overpolicing with assumed, imaginary regulatory powers. The fact that some of the sources may be self-published doesn't invalidate them for informing the Wikipedia article about Matthews' birthdate or production company. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I did not remove any sources. Rather, I merely removed repeated uses of the SAME source to avoid redundancy. Likewise, I think that YOU are the one with Straw Man problems ("How many movies have YOU been in?") The

WP:BIO, you will see that a subject has to have SUBSTATIAL coverage from third-party sources. The story provided only mentions that he was CAST in the film. The sentence is only five words, how can that assert notability for an entire article? So no, I will not be reversing my stance. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

He is cast in two movies. Who gets cast in two movies -- not someone who is non-notable. He's not going to be the lead's sister's boyfriend's cousin's neighbor -- he's a lead in one of the two films, and we don't know about the secodnd movie yet. If the Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times both say that he's the newest, up-and-coming talent, that makes him notable. I apologize for my comments about 'how many movies have you been in' -- that was to assert the point I reiterate at the start of this paragraph -- they were not meant as a strawman argument, but as a valid assessment of his notabilty over, for instance, you or me. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been PLENTY of non-notable actors to be cast in films. Do you realize how many up-and-coming struggling actors there are? Should they ALL get their own page? And you're right; We DON'T know about the second movie yet, so that shouldn't even BEGIN to come into the discussion on notability. When did Hollywood Reporter and Th LA Times call him "the newest, up-and-coming talent?" I don't remember that in any of the sources presented on the page, and even if those words appeared somewhere on their website, it was likely a press-release reprint like the Reuters stories. Just because a publication reprints a press-release does not mean that they endorse the content within. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to fight -- only to debate. To begin, I'd like to apologize. This was getting heated up a bit back there, so let me just state my case, and you can state yours. I see this article being put up for deletion because it was poorly written, poorly formatted, poorly sourced. It turns out that there was a lot more information available, but the creating editor failed to collect it and place it in proper format in the article. It was therefor tagged. As the article stands now, there is enough to substantiate Matthews as a notable rising star. You claim that press releases mean nothing (or little -- not here to put words in your mouth), but with 3 or 4 or 5 -- they can't mean nothing. And they are in addition to the the hollywood reportor and now a San Francisco television station online article. The fact that these things are reported by news stations means the press releases are notable -- I don't think it's fair to claim that they are 'just press releases.' You claim that there are dozens if not scores if not perhaps hundreds of non-notable actors that are cast in films. But an actor who is cast in 3 films in the course of a year -- that's why these press releases are calling him "the latest hot star" and "Hollywood's biggest secret" and whatever else they are calling him. You claimed that these were sensationalism at best, so I removed them from the article. It was my impression that these quotes could be integrated as long as they were not only sourced but cited in-line as the opinion/interpretation of XYZ as opposed to being an objective fact -- but I removed them nonetheless. He is an established models, according to the sources and an up-and-coming 3-movies-in-1-year heartthrob star -- why do you mount such hesitation and unwillingness to allow for this article to exist. From the sources, it seems objective that he is not just another film actor. Once again, I didn't start this article and I never even heard of him before coming across his name on the AfD list, but once I checked him out, the sources are proving him legitimate! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Press releases are NOT reliable sources, in any case whatsoever. Press releases are written and put out by a publicist hired by someone to make them look good, which means they are not reliable. I can write up a press release saying that I'm "One of Hollywood's most rugged action heroes", but that doesn't mean that it's true. Among all else, sources need to be

Self-published sources are never, ever EVER reliable sources. Also, it isn't that these sites chose the press release to reprint - to do so would be a major blow to their journalistic credibility - Rather, they subscribe to a service that automatically feeds various press releases to a certain place on their website. Thus, it does not qualify as a "Reuters article", it is simply a press release that is on Reuters' website. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But what you say is not what the policy says -- self-published sources are not never, ever EVER accepted. If you read the policy, the only claim you may have is that articles should not be based on these types of sources. I think 2 or 3 sources is enough to substantiate an article like this, and the rest are just icing, like to substantiate his birthday, etc. IMDb and Hollywood Reporter are both not press releases and the press releases are only elaborating on the information already provided as substantiated by those two sources -- it's not ridiculously new information, but rather some more information that get updated every time there's a new press release. Something written prior to his second movie obviously can't talk about his third movie. I don't see why there is such a hesitation to -- not, "let this one slip by" (I don't think this is a case of slipping by) -- allow this article to exist on the merits of its presented sources. Is there some source making all of this controversial or negating the validity of this information. Do we really need 5 or 10 sources to say that someone is a notable actor -- 2 or 3 isn't enough? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is edited by anyone off the street, so it has no more reliability than a press release. Hollywood Reporter clearly states some other actor is the star and mentions a Jordan Matthews as being currently cast in it too, but with no further information. Casting information also frequently changes, so it's not reliable at this point. There's nothing to show this person has any notability, and, frankly, the only evidene existing now suggests that he's not at all notable YET... having some fan put wildly hyperbolic statements in support of him doesn;t change it either. From your over the top support and misunderstanding of policies I think you may have a

WP:COI

problem here... certainly a problem with understanding other fundamental policies. 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that none of the non-press-release sources have enough content to signify notability. They're short sentences that simply MENTION that he is in a movie. It isn't a good precedent to have an article that relies this heavily on self-published material. The problem with letting this article exist on the merits of it's presented sources is that its presented sources to not establish the subject's notability. And no, we don't need ten sources to prove a subject's notability. Hell, just one source would do if it actually established that the subject was notable. But you have to realize that simply starring in a movie does not make someone notable.. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The issue is not whether the article is well-formatted or not. The actor in question already has an IMDB entry, and that only lists some upcoming film roles, so he is clearly not notable as an actor. As for the modelling, there is definitely not "substantial" independent coverage of his career. Let IMDB do its job of listing all actors, notable or not, and let WP do its job of providing encyclopedic coverage of notable topics. --Slashme (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The keyword seems to be 'Vanity Page.' Stijndon (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria. References in article appear to be reprints of the same story(ies). Confirmation that he has been cast in movies which themselves fail the future films criteria doesn't assert his notability, importance, or significants in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - non-notable and unsourced. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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