Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 30

• Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world
  primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No hint of real world notability. Supporting character in moderately notable series. Redirect to
  Sword of Truth. RayAYang (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a major character in an important series. Appropriate break out page. Weird, that policy is being determined by relative persistence here of the same people. DGG (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Point taken. As one of who might be considered a pest here, I will think about contributing to the
    ignore it). Meanwhile, I make no apology for participating in practice, and take no offense at rebuttals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this character is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to real world notability and out of universe detail as well as signigficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Many Google book hits. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
  Tally-ho! 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  source plz? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See the link above. --Happy editing! Sincerely,

  Tally-ho! 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What sources were there again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, you have already made it clear that 1) you don't personally like me and 2) you will respond to me just to disrupt me. Therefore, I will not play these unconstructive games with you any further and will avoid going back and forth with you as there does not seem any constructive purpose in doing so. I looked in those links and believe the appearances are sufficient enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. There's not much more to say. It is obvious that by now neither of us are going to convince the other and while I try hard to not actually think of anyone here with terms like "dislike", you have made it clear as much about me that you feel that why, so there's just no point here. --Happy editing! Sincerely,

  Tally-ho! 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How I feel is irrelevant to a discussion of this article subject. Now, which of those "sources" in your Google search isn't a work of fiction? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RayAYang. No real-world notability.
  talk) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The bifecta of
    Tally-ho! 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge into
  Characters in The Sword of Truth WikiScrubber (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete.

Untitled Animal Collective album

Untitled Animal Collective album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled future album. More info can be found at

• Delete. Although it does seem well sourced, the article provides a bit more speculation than information. It would be better off if re-started after the album is released. But for now, it just doesn't seem good enough.
  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No, don't recreate after the album's release, but when we get a release date, track listing and title. Yes,
  Pitchfork Media helps as a source, but all it says is that they played some new songs at a concert or two. Not enough to make an article out of. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The album has a tentative release date (Source: MTV), thus I assumed it was worthy of an article. I'll refrain from voting formally one way or the other, but I will say that I think the album is worthy of an article at this point in time, with all that has been said about the new songs they have played live. At any rate, this album will surely have an article in a few months anyway. -DMurphy (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lacks
  WP:MUSIC#Albums. Recreate without prejudice once we have a confirmed title, track listing, release date etc. Oh, and don't forget the significant independent coverage from reliable sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Sources that meet

Nipsey Hussle

Declined speedy. This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Speculative claims and coverage by blogspot/wordpress do not apply. JBsupreme (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I've reviewed wp:music, and admittedly, he meets none of the criteria for notability. But he is signed to Epic, a major label, and has upwards of 30k google hits. I fail to see why we should delete an article which is better than some existing ones. It is well written (with a couple tone issues here and there), and doesn't seem to be a self-made or zealous fan-made (it isn't overbearingly laudatory). In short, it is well written and the artist seems to have the potential to become notable. And this keep is coming from someone who despises nn content on WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Currently fails
  WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find any reliable independent secondary sources. I suspect the majority of the article stems from original research/personal knowledge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article doesn't include sources but plenty of sources exist. Here are a few; they seem reliable enough to me to keep the article, especially given the success they describe. [6] [7] [8] [9] (blog of a print magazine) He's signed to Epic records, which is major, and one of these sources says he's got a "radio single", which I take to mean he's in some degree of radio rotation. He also contributed (one track) to
  WP:NOT#PAPER applies, too. Mangojuice^talk 12:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. Unfortunately I don't feel that any of the sources provided by Mangojuice meet up to our standards for reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This stuff is true; I've followed this guy since day one. He's a good and interesting rapper and he's on his way up fast, so i think people will want to know about him soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.67.130 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources cited.
  talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, blog source. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles of the Hold

Tiles of the Hold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Non notable fiction. 7 Google hits DimaG (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It does not meet notability guidelines. Tavix (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world
  primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Sosnin

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

contested prod, fails

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BanRay 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:BIO, doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of him in independent reliable secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - His Zenit profile doesn't list him in any first team games. Recreate if he gets one. GauchoDude (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete player curently fails
  WP:ATHLETE. - Basement12 (T.C) 18:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nom. Recreate as and when he plays a professional game. Quentin X (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:FOOTYN -- Alexf⁴² 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Tears

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

Book series, pretty much summed up by this sentence of the second paragraph: "The first novel has yet to be published". Fails

• Delete per nom and
  Wikipedia:BK#Not yet published books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Too much speculation for my liking, and no references given for the information provided otherwise.
  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom and User:Metropolitan90 BanRay 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  folsom 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no references, and seems to be mostly speculation. Let's wait until it actually comes out. Green caterpillar (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per eloquently put nom and the author's own petard. JuJube (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author removed my speed deletion tag. Delete per nominator. StaticGull  Talk  11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, he was right to remove the
    A3 no content tag since he also introduced content with the same edit. Amalthea^Talk 12:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nominator looks to be a
  WP:CRYSTAL speculation at this point. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw - I located some information. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School of Economic Science

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

)

Limited independent coverage. Questionable notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - controversial school that meets
  talk) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - controversial organisation, well known with notable book, press and media coverage. Certainly notable.--Rbreen (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems to be notable for its controversy let alone the fact it has institutions all over the UK and apparently overseas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Peter Thomas (mining executive)

Peter Thomas (mining executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non

changed the article from Churchill scholarship to Menzies Scholarship to Harvard as per comment on article talk page[10], still unsourced and according to the Menzies Foundation Web site there isnt a listing for the subject[11]. Gnangarra 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnangarra 16:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thin resumé for a non-notable
  CFO with no authoritative external sourcing of notability. Of the four sources that are cited, two are basically directory entries (Newington College Register; Newsweek - not a Newsweek article, an "Executive Profile" directory type entry), one is the site of the company he works for, and one is a paper source (that's fine) that appears to be about his college (Newington Across the Years). He doesn't appear to have published anything, killed anyone, played on the national rugby squad, recorded with a band, or invented anything of note. Solid, absolutely non-notable Aussie. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Reads like a CV.Tinminer (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a whole-of-life biography of its subject. It does not focus on any particular notability of the subject.
  WP:NOTMYSPACE says WP is not a social network and should not be used as an alternative to www.facebook.com or similar. The sponsors of this article should transfer it to one of the many social networks on the internet. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable. LinkedIn would be an appropriate destination for this content. Murtoa (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as the CFO of a major Australian mining company in the middle of a resources boom. All senior executives of Fortescue should have bios on wikipedia not just the boss who is now Australia's richest man. These people are changing the face of WA and the economy. Castlemate (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thomas's personal impact on WA or the economy is best measured (at least in Wikipedia terms) by the amount of coverage he has attracted in significant, reliable, third party sources. And apart from small news bites when he has changed companies, there is very little in that regard. Google News is a reasonable barometer of coverage, and it appears to turn up next to nothing. He may work for a big company, but in terms of his personal notability, based on verifiable evidence, he appears to fall short. Murtoa (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable.--Lester 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thomas is well known in the Australian resources business while google news may not list many citations , it should not be regarded as any measure of notability. The media spokespeople of large companies are not necessarily the movers and shakers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.253.176 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While Google News should not be relied upon exclusively as a measure of notability, for someone in a business field like Thomas it is a helpful and relevant gauge of coverage in reliable, third party publications such as business pages of metropolitan dailies. By this measure, which I suggest is reasonable, he fails on notability grounds. Murtoa (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, default to keep. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordreich

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

This article, and the online organization it describes, lacks 'real-world' notability and relevance. It's only defence is a short burst of news reports about the organization in question, which Wikipedia guidelines (

• Weak merge into one or all of Cyber Nations, YouTube, and Minister of Foreign Affairs (Norway). There is a mention of them in UPI NewsTrack and Cyber Nations. I doubt that the creators of Cyber Nations online game thought someone would choose Nazi's as a basis for their fictional nation and this is an interesting topic. However, the information seems to be about the reactions to Nordreich rather than a chronological account of the series of events making up the "life" of the Nordreich organization. The point of the fictional orginazation was to participate in Cyber Nations and the Wikipedia article on Nordreich lacks details on their participation in Cyber Nations. While everyone reacted to Nordreich, the Nordreich organization itself did not do much that could be detailed in an article about Nordreich. The news coverage of Nordreich doesn't seem to go beyond the context of a single event. There might be some source material in German. Suntag (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somehwere WikiScrubber (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep or (better yet) Merge somewhere. There is enough reporting on this to make it notable per WP:N. Even ignoring that, it's notable in the English sense of the word. But editorially I think it should be part of something larger, not an article by itself. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questfrp

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

An almost unheard of game, no real coverage. StaticGull  Talk  15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of
  WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom BanRay 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources, doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)

Unspeakable Vault (of Doom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather well-written article, but the subject does not yet meet notability guidelines. The included references are all from blogs or from sources with commercial relationships with the comic.

• Weak delete. I agree that this article is very informative, with multiple links within wikipedia and a good number of external ones as well. But given the fact that the references come from basically the same source, I find it hard pressed to give substantial reasons asking for the topic to be kept.
  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. Nice article, real shame it doesn't meet notability, and not very well-referenced either. Calor (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A card game based on the webcomic has been produced by one independant notable game company and a board game based on the webcomic has been produced by a second notable game company. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per reason given by Edward321. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming Edward321's statement can be substantiated, keep. DS (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321 is right in that there is a card game and a board game. However, in my opinion that still does not convey notability, because it still hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.--

the Orphanage 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I just added some external references at the end of the article. But I fear they won't be more notable than the previous ones. I searched on the web and found many links to the UVoD webcomic, mainly in blogs or forums or simple link pages which won't be convenient for Wikipedia's policy. Also added a link to the French Wikipedia Article (not written by me) Bt4242 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Shadic

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

Non-notable rarely seen fictional character. StaticGull  Talk  15:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. Is it not possible to add this guy to a list of Sonic characters? Sure he does not warrant an exclusive article of his own, but it would be a waste to just delete him.
  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Pointless to try and save. Shadic is a fan character, qualifying this as fancruft. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:GAMEGUIDE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — More Sonic
  MuZemike (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per MuZemike. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable third-party sources to verify the article's contents, and thus completely non-notable. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs (band)

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

Unnotable band that fails

• I asked the speedy decliner to comment, and the reply was "It looks like there were sources provided which made me uncomfortable with speedy-ing it."[12]. The references are all to websites, so it seem difficult to determine whether they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the website has a staff that performs similarly to the fact/accuracy checking staff at a newspaper or book publisher (and they have a reputation for that), then that would seem to be a usable source. I don't know how you check the reputation. Does Wikipedia have a list of websites that qualify as a reliable source websites? That would make this much easier. Suntag (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is only ONE reference, to a directory-style listing. ELs are not refs. Of those ELs, almost all of them are directory style listings (like sticking in links to IMDB, AMG, etc on films) and none are

talk · contribs) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I did take a look at Diabolical Conquest and thought that they may qualify as a reliable source since the listed a "staff". Your point about "visible history of reliable, neutral reporting" seems interesting. Perhaps the website needs to have at least someone on the ground who physically goes to places to do interviews, write stories, etc. Suntag (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always thought that Encyclopaedia Metallum is quite a reliable source. What about Moribund Records - are they considered reliable? Nameless Undead (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum seems to be put together similarly to how Wikipedia is put together. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Suntag (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, nevermind Encyclopaedia Metallum. But what about Moribund Records? I already asked once... Nameless Undead (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source, but as it is not a third-party source, but the album producer/seller, it can not be used to establish notability. --

talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it is a reliable source, but I couldn't find any information on the site's operation to consider it a Wikipedia reliable source. If you think about the steps the New York Time takes (or any print news paper takes) to ultimately publish something and then think about the steps Moribund Records likely takes to post something on their web site, there likely is much missing from the actions of Moribund Records to make that site a Wikipedia reliable source. It also has ties to the topic, so it not a third party source. Suntag (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak Delete since there does not seem to be enough reliable, third-party, published source material for a Wikipedia article on the topic. Please contact me on my talk page if you discover that this is in error. Suntag (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages 102 to 104 of this book has some info. Suntag (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Multiple third party sources and reviews. Two releases on a notable label too. Passes
  WP:MUSIC with ease. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does this mean that the AfD notice is going to be removed? Nameless Undead (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not until the AfD has been closed. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but savagely trim the external links which take up half the page.
  talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anathallo

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

Seemingly unnotable band, with no notable members, and no notable label. Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's some articles: thestranger.com, baltimoresun.com, Grand Rapids Press, News & Observer, Billboard, Daily Vidette, and New York Times. There also is Anathallo Women's Ministries, which does not seem related. -- Suntag (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And there seems to be more at In the news. Probably need someone to add the information and references to the article rather than delete the article. -- Suntag (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like they were recently picked up by a medium sized label called Anticon http://imomus.livejournal.com/396567.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidd (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a better source than livejournal. Furthermore I thought the notability criteria was that the band had to have multiple releases on a notable independent label, not just one.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If for example, an indie band releases only one album but has been widely reported to have toured the U.S., they will satisfy WP:MUSIC.
    T» 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This band is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; they have been covered in-depth by several reliable, independent sources, including the Baltimore Sun and Billboard magazine. I haven't seen a counterpoint to Suntag's post, so can we close this deletion request?
  talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This artist is quite active both in touring and in the studio. They have written and recorded a new album "Canopy Glow" and are currently planning ways to market and release it. As artists creating new art regularly, why would they be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.153.5 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, if there's reliable sources verifying notability then add them. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The release has been planned. Anathllo has a blog that they keep updated and they announced today that they will be releasing a new album titled "Canopy Glow" and it will be released on November 18th by said album label Articon. http://yourhappymakesmegooldies.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.20.98 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the sources identified above by Suntag provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per

July 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Nothing yet confirmed for this month. D.M.N. (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm adding
  June 2021 for the same reason. D.M.N. (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Adding
    May 2021 too. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete both: Neither contain any information and July cites Wikipedia as a source - although I am not entirely sure what is supposed to be verified - that nothing will happen in July 2021? Anyway, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore not the place to speculate that July 2021 will be dull and boring. Delete without prejudice; can be recreated if something substantial and verifiable comes to light. ~ AmeIiorate
  T C @ 12:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both: per
  WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both for the reasons provided by the two users above. Why may I ask do people create pages for events way into the future, of which they have no clue in what to expect? Such articles are a waste of time to make, and a waste of time to delete. Just wait until July 2021 actually comes around before bothering to start the date's topic. -_-
  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both Apparently an attempt to see whether people think this would be an appropriate spinoff of 2021. Answer, they don't. I gotta admire the author's honesty, though: "Events:None. Sports:None. Software:None. Deaths:No deaths. Films:No films." Better that you attempt an article called "July 1921". Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or Delete and redirect) both
  May 2021 since they contain virtually no content, and nothing which is not on the 2021 page. -- Jll (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - "No content" speedy delete requirement says "Any article consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." Suntag (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both -
  db-nocontent}}. Same with the others mentioned above (February and May 2021?). Calor (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: I've added
  May 2021 to the deletion debate per a few of the above comments. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Oh, well February 2021... that's going to be when Super Bowl LV takes place. The good news is that the Bills are finally going to win. The bad news is that they will be in Toronto by then. Delete those too. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom BanRay 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every month 2021 that exists. Tavix (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it clearly exists, nothing else matters Delete of course, blatant crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All
  crystal ballery, empty articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snowball delete all, yet too remote. --
  Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete all I'm surprised this didn't get speedy deleted already. --
  talk) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Perrin

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

When the author created this

• Keep. Misinterpretation of
  talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete pending better sourcing. He's the recently appointed CEO of a company that's been much in the news in Switzerland because of a strike, but he still needs to meet
  WP:BIO. I can't immedately find any substantial coverage about him that is not a press release. However, given his position, I can well imagine that such coverage exists somewhere.  Sandstein  07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep CEO of a major company is notable. As the prev. ed says, he has major newspaper refs. What more is needed? presumably notability from his position, confirmed by those who insist on the GNC superseding everything else. 7 months as CEO is not oneevent. An author can perfectly reasonable put a tag on an article when he knows he hasn't done a perfect job--WP editing is a cooperative project. Many is the article I've started and put an expand tag on, & I could see someone saying wikify if they didn't know how or even if they hadn't the time--i've often edited an article to rescue it and put on a tag like this for someone else to finish. And certainly globalise. Unsourced is a little odder, but I can see putting it on a stub for someone the author thinks clearly and obviously notable. I'm glad to have the chance to join Stifle on a keep. DGG (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the company has had plenty of press coverage. The CEO personally? Possibly, but I'm not sure.  Sandstein  21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry, that I made some mistakes in the english wikipedia. But english is not my first language, so I hope, the mistakes are excusable. I thought it would be good to have a page about Perrin here, because you also find it in the french, german and italian version of wikipedia. His antecessor Daniel Nordmann has also a page here. And by the way I added the references. So I also join Stifle on a keep. User:Gueterbahnen (User:Gueterbahnen) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.138.131.90 (talk) [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Please don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic theory of miracles

Epistemic theory of miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and questionable notability

• Completely bizaree. I am currently working on the article and will provide references. This is certainly more notable than the article cunt. Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The creator of this article has removed the AFD tag twice. I have restored it.
  talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Don't put these stupid tags on articles that are under development, and which will be well-referenced, and which are important in relation to the Western philosophical tradition. Stick to garage bands or something. Peter Damian (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless Peter has some ancient 5th century text I rather suspect he must have some secondary sources at hand...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added so that much is no longer a problem. Notability is still in question, however. I have reported the author for 3RR due to removing the deletion tag 4 times.
    talk) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Stifle, you gave an established editor 15 minutes before placing a PROD tag? Somewhat hasty I would have thought and not conducive to an environment of collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look the guy is a complete idiot. Spinoza's essay on Miracles is famous, as is Hume's. And note that the

Theologico-Political Treatise actually has an article about in its own right, as should have been obvious from the article. Why are we even arguing about this? Go and learn something and come back and help write an encyclopedia, got it? Peter Damian (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn. Sorry folks.

Sylvia's Meadow

Sylvia's Meadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Does not appear to be a notable location.

• Why was this prodded for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation? --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this is a very notable location in

• Keep per the BBC and Cornwall Wildlife Trust I think, Stifle, did you google at least before nominating? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let's not forget the in-depth entery in the book Wild About Cornwall. It took me three seconds to find this and the BBC article. I imagine it took several times longer and more effort to create this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Groundless nomination since the location is obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable per listing as an SSSI and BBC coverage. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Jarvis

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

Contested PROD. Article seems to contain a whole lot of original research, and is mostly not on topic (IE: about 90% of the article is about The Shak, not Drew Jarvis.) Subject may well be notable, but in its current form it would require quite some maintenance to display that Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless fixed par being the nominator Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It would appear that he is a somewhat notable children's television presenter. A quick search on Google News turns up content in The Sunday Mail and The Courier Mail newspapers. Given the content of the article, it's likely this was written by a child, and I think it was a bit mean slapping a prod tag on it four minutes after creation without notifying them or making any attempt to clean the article up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Im tagging articles whenever i check them, which means that my tags will mostly be almost real time. I agree that this can be quite fast, but prod tags give the creator 5 days to fix an article before its even considered for removal, which should be enough time to fix the article :) (And this article had nearly a month). I don't mind if i have to clean up articles, but when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Lankiveil and
  fix it per nom. Needing work is not a reason for deletion. when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. is a lousy reason for deletion. If the topic is notable it often takes less time to fix it then it does to nom and argue about it at AfD. Time spent fixing is a better and more productive use of time in my opinion. TravellingCari 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here you go. I cleaned it up and added the best google news source i could find (The other links were about a war veteran with the same name). Other then that i found the original article to be a direct copyvio of This link. Its still not a great article, but perhaps its an ok stub article for now. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Sector

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

Contested prod. Seems to be a non notable band Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete par being the nominator. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lack of Google news hits would indicate that they have not been the subject of published works, do not have a charted hit, do not have a gold-certified record, have not received coverage in a reliable source, do not contain a notable member, are not prominent representatives of their genre, have not been nominated for an award, has not performed for notable media, have not been placed in a rotation and the appearance on
  T C @ 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  User:AmeIiorate BanRay 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defari

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

I was unable to find sources that would help this article pass

• Delete one of the sources is self-published, and the Google books result contains one small paragraph - not enough to meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" requirement. Nothing the article asserts and nothing I can find makes this person notable enough for inclusion. ~ AmeIiorate
  T C @ 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Defari is a recognised name in underground hip-hop circles. There are reliable sources to be found if you care to look - here's a biography from Allmusic and here's a Los Angeles Times article on the guy. More independent sources are here, here, here, here and here. I didn't even have to look very hard. Sharpen up, brothers and sisters. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, problem's been taken care of. GlassCobra 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOB (disambiguation)

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

This supposed disambiguation page doesn't disambiguate anything. There are no links to articles about SOB, because there aren't any. Instead, we have a list of four possible dicdefs. Emeraude (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  talk) 10:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, hadn't seen that when I nominated. Clearly SOB is a disambiguation page and does what it says. While users may type SOB and need disambiguation, SOB (disambiguation) is something that no one is going to type in, so I would suggest a redirect is not necessary. Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing much in the edit history worth saving and an unlikely search expression. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless dab Tavix (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There already is
  WP:NOT#DICT (which is also true for dab pages). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've redirected per Pinch.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the disambiguation does not appear to be necessary at this time. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Epidemic

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

Contested prod (IP editor gave no reason for removing the tag). Band fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no references to back up claims.
  talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless they come up with some
  RS's. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta

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

Seems non-notable, no reliable sources, although the first line says she played a main role in the film

I'm also adding

Dada Amir Haider as I feel he does not meet the notability criteria. D.M.N. (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment These are two separate people that don't have that much in common. If you are going to AfD both of them, please use two different discussions. I have split the part about Dada Amir Haider into his own discussion so we can keep this one just about Aarti Gupta. Tavix (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, there are lots of Bollywood actors/actresses who are just in one or two minor movies and then fade back into obscurity.
  talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been added to article during AFD to establish notability Davewild (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Amir Haider

Just came across this article, he was a noted revolutionary, during the Indian independence movement. (Ekabhishek (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

)

I feel he does not meet the notability criteria. D.M.N. (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This was split from a
  bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has plenty of references that demonstrate notability.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but tag multiple issues. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. TravellingCari 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Evans (cyclist)

Lee Evans (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cyclist, all searches for him yield only results for other Lee Evans'. Eventually getting it down to "Lee Evans cyclist New Zealand" fails to bring up any third party coverage and only illustrates that there is a Lee Evans from New Zealand who is a cyclist. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]