Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (

Taboo Curran

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

User:Roxineous has a history of adding stupid terms such as Scarefy and Togglator, both of which were deleted as nonsense. This term has absolutely no hits on the web, nothing in Google books or scholar. The dictionary link provided as a reference does not support the term. There is no evidence that the book listed even exists, nor can I find any evidence of the publisher listed. Speedy was denied, citing these supposed references. Dmol (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as made up. No evidence of book reference existing. The dictionary link is for taboo not taboo curran. Some action should also be taken against the article creator. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• <<post ev>>I rejected the speedy not knowing the creator's history and giving the benefit of the doubt on the source-- books 100 years old are hard to find copies of on the internet. I also suggested that the creator needed to work on sourcing. A 100 year old source is hard to verify. The publisher nay have gone extinct. In any event, I find no trace of that Roger Garrisson, though there is a contemporary writer who gets Google hits. As I also mentioned, consideration should be given as to whether or not this is more than a
  verifable sources. I feel the creator of the article made a fool of me with a plausible sounding argument to not delete the thing. In view of that, this edit, and the information provided by the nom-- delete. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

PS. Actually, I deleted, had second thoughts after reading the passionate pleas on the talk page, and undeleted. Also, I freaked when I could not find "obvious hoax" among the CSD tempaltes. Dlohcierekim 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. WorldCat shows no evidence of cited reference or its author. If it existed, it would be in a library somewhere. Deor (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Nonsense/hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear hoax as checking any dictionary will show. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please read discussion Talk:Taboo Curran as well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:40, 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 keep - seems ironic to record this as

Rolf Bae

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

I don't mean to be disrespectful to this person who unfortunately perished in the recent K2 accident, but I'm afraid that dying in this event does not make a person notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I nominate this article for deletion - or actually, that it be redirected to the K2 disaster article, unless someone actually establishes notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, sympathies to the family and friends, but unfortunately this does not make him notable for an encyclopaedia. Perhaps he was notable before this incident, but there is no mention of it in the article. Several people died in that incident. Delete, unless evidence of other notability is provided.--Dmol (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or keep and expand Yes an unfortunate event. However I doubt he qualifies for a full biographical article. Anything there is to say could quite easily be put in the disaster article. His wife
  $1,000,000? 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and expand Bae is a very well reputated Norwegian mountaineer and explorer. He is still holding the world record of the longest cross country skiing crossing the Antarctica with Eirik Sønneland in 2001, and very recently repeating the Norwegian Route at Greate Trango Towers in Karakoram Pakistan. --Anarkistix (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We cannot expand an article by decree from a deletion discussion... __
  talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Bae is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of the Antarctic from 2007, which shows that he was known before the K2 accident. There are other pre-2008 mentions at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, if the article gets furnished with reliable sources documenting notability, I'll change my opinion. __
  talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Article has been expanded sufficiently. __
  talk) 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand I dunno, looks to me like there's enough notable material aside from the K2 disaster. Just need to elaborate on it further. General Epitaph (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Editor(s) is/are doing a fine job of establishing notability as well as making an interesting wikipedia article. I'm interested. Want to know more about this person. Not spam. Not advertising. This one's legit people. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While dying on K2 is not notable, making the world's longest ski journey and being part of the first group to ascend
  Great Trango Tower by that route and surivive the return indicates notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and suggest early closure per
  WP:SNOW. The page has been expanded considerably since the version prompting this AFD, and several new references establishing notability independent of the accident have been added. The article was AFDed for placing undue weight solely on Bae's death; this is now clearly no longer the case, and I doubt anyone can dispute that Bae was independently recognized as notable in his field. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just confirming what Edward321 stated, he did (until recently) hold the record for the world's longest cross-country ski journey. He also climbed the south face of the Great Trango Tower, a route described modestly as the most difficult, hazardous and arduous high-altitude vertical rock climbing in the world, and attempted only thrice in history. The first team died to the last man. His team was the third, and only the second to do it and survive. It hasn't been done since. Most climbers regard it as a death-trap, even for elite vertical rock-wall climbers. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am sorry I removed the AFD, I guess I am too inexperienced here to really know the rules of the game, and should have behaved as the novice that I am. But I understood it as if there was consensus on keeping the article after it had been expanded. Thommra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommra (talk • contribs) 00:34, 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. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Sandek

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

Test page maybe. But user removed speedy tag and keeps vandalising. Please rid this and block him/her. Burningjoker (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Lulling

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

)

procedural nomination as another user added the article to the AfD list without tagging the article itself. My assumption is deletion based on notability issues. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "tagging" the article. I only found out how to do this about a second ago when I saw you've already done it. I nominated the article because it looks like self-promotion. Facts:

• Lonk list of weblinks to sites (seemingly owned by that person) that do not add any considerable value to the article.
• Publishing videoclips on youtube is generally not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

--217.86.18.197 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you want to delete an article about somebody who is mentioned in other wikipedia articles, just check the

luxembourgish language article. Mister Lulling is probably not known in England, but his achievements for the luxembourgish language are indeed undeniable. This article has to stay, imho.

Interesting also that you talk about the youtube clips 'being not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia' .... highly interesting, since there are so many links to youtube clips inside wikipedia articles, but, maybe you only consider them 'worthy', if they are about popstars like timbaland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleya (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional, no real assertion of notability. The "keep" arguments above use poor logic... youtube links are NOT endorsed on Wiki, and are typically reverted by a bot.
  Tan ǀ 39 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I just rewrote the text, adding proper references and new information regarding Lulling's published works. I also corrected the title of the article to reflect the correct spelling of Lulling's first name. Admittedly, Lulling is unknown in the Anglophonic world. But his contributions to preserving and enhancing his nation's language is extremely notable.
  talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While I'm getting used to you editing behind me and frequently opposing my opinions, I just reviewed all the references.. and I don't think any of them constitute the required "significant, reliable coverage" needed. In fact, most of them aren't coverage at all, just mentions on websites.

Tan ǀ 39 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I should point out that I am not upset about Eco's editing behind me here, his opinions are valid and typically very well-reasoned, and I just happen to disagree with his !vote on this AfD. In no way was I trying to be snarky or bitter.

Tan ǀ 39 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fear not, I am not offended. :)

talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep per
  Tally-ho! 18:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again, just a comment - I have no special interest in deleting this article - but the guideline you cite states, "a week should be enough". This article has been around three times that long.

Tan ǀ 39 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It's not in such a bad state as to be hopeless. --
  talk) 18:58, 6 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, lifebaka++ 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Le Grand Roi's comments. Director33 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mr. Lulling has his own 2 TV shows about Luxembourgish language on www.dok.lu (the open channel), his book Luxdico is among the best selling books of all time here in luxembourg (accordin' to an interview with 'em, it sold approx. 9.000 units, which is incredible for a language that is spoken merely by 270.000 people) yet, all his efforts seem to come too late, in luxembourg city only 40% still speak luxembourgish. and for the record, in the last 30 years there have only been 3-5 phd dissertations about luxembourgish, Mr Lulling is the author of one of them. And, accordin' to the luxembourgish wikipedia,he is also the author of the first luxembourgish computergame comboling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleya (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 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. Wizardman 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Stephenson (producer)

Carl Stephenson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Delete par being the nominator Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a hoax. He claims to have coproduced and cowritten Loser (Beck song), and a quick search supports it. He's even mentioned at our own Mellow Gold article. He has an entry in numerous music databases (Allmusic, music.msn.com). There's a number of gnews [8] [9] which just led me to coverage in the Los Angeles Times, e.g. [10]. Most of them are pay per view, so I can only see abstracts, put I think there's enough coverage about *him* to be significant.
  Keep, but it needs a serious rewrite. --Amalthea^Talk 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable and poor refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to
    WP:MUSIC). References have been improved a little, but there's much more out there (if not for free, look at the google news search)
    Furthermore, "poor refs" are not a reason for deletion - non-existant references are.
    Amalthea^Talk 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per Amalthea. Hiding T 21:06, 12 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) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Mess

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

Non-notable EP, no reliable sources found. Self-released, no cover art. Propose a delete and/or rewrite to be about the Diamond Rio song of the same name (which, being a Number One hit, is probably very notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried a search in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have not found any sources to help to establish
  WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and Paul Erik; no
  sources and appears non-notable. Cliff smith ^talk 05:10, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Cat 22

Calling Cat 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what to say here that shouldn't be obvious: no refs and no verification leaves the whole article entirely based on original research. Beyond that, this is basically a 5 minute short which randomly airs during normal programming slots on Cartoon Network. Some quick searches did turn up three refs, so I'll mention them for the sake of it: is a casual mention by another animator, the original animator's own blog and a fan forum, which is generally considered unsuitable for referencing.

• Delete Yeah, CeilingCalling Cat 22 can be covered by
  WP:N and wouldn't get very far past stub class. treelo _radda 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shnitzel. I mean per Treelo. No way that this could ever become more than the stub that it is; no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:00, 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 keep. John254 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mao

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

Unsourced

• Speedy Keep - external links include two good quality RS on him from New Scientist [11] and The Economist [12], that's without actually bothering to search Google News for him [13] -Hunting dog (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite but still keep. The article needs a lot of work (and has needed said work for what appears to be 2 years now) but this can be fixed through editing I should hope. RFerreira (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the New Scientist and Economist links satisfy multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources. That said they BARELY satisfy it this article would benefit from additional sources. -Markeer 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there was previous Afd on this which is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mao (2006), technically that should be shown here as first Afd and this as second - but I've no idea how to fix that! -Hunting dog (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily someone else did - now appears fixed -Hunting dog (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He seems notable, although you have to wonder how freely he can express his opinion or if he is stalking horse to lure dissenters into revealing themselves. Still, given controversy with China and the web, it is worth keeping track of some players out there.Morgonio (talk) 05:47, 11 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't

Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure about this article. Although information in this may be valid, it doesn't show any source and it is written as an essay. If not deleted, it needs to be re-written and renamed. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to me to be original research about the etymology of the name of Sunni Islam. Some portion of the information might be carefully merged into the main article. There may be enough for a separate article at some time, but this is not it; and any such article ought to appear under a title that would occur to English speakers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not an original research about the etymology of the name of Sunni Islam, It looks like someone trying to show his own point of view, or his group point of view, it is difficult for me to trace the supplied references, at the same time the user does not have a user page to discuss with him. The article Sunni Islam covers all details about the subject with historical proven references, and all information in Sunni Islam it is well known to Muslims. But I don’t know what this article want to tell us. at the same time, I don't know how to reach the supplied references like this one (Source: Tarikh Islam, vol. 2, page 673) and other. The name of the article "Sunni The Origin of the name Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama't" Seems like someone will explain how the name comes, but the contents are about history, for me it is the first time to hear about this history.
  About what he calls "Allamah Ahmad Ameen of Egypt and taking him as an Islamic Reference. I tried to validate this from Ahmed Amin original book but I failed, at least he must show how we can find this in the original books, not a translated books.
  By the way “Allamah” in some area of the Middle East means someone with huge knowledge about Islam, and can be an Islamic Reference, but Ahmad Ameen (1886-1945) he was a teacher in Cairo University faculty of Arts, (even not a teacher in Al-Azhar University Which is the main reference for Islamic studies), and his three books about Islam does not represent any Islamic reference, they are books for the causual reader, I can write similar books if I want and my books will not be an Islamic reference as well. Also Ahmad Ameen was interested with politics any science, not an Islamic specialized writer, This is what Egypt knows about Ahmed Ameen, from Egypt State Information Service, maybe the author knows him more than us.
• Another Comment Nothing of the information can be merged into Sunni Islam.--Puttyschool (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think as soon as possible this is nonsense. --Puttyschool (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 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 No consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd

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

Based on

This article has been deleted before due to it's general lack of Notability, and has been brought back with the claim that it is in fact notable, with 17 references, none of which appear to fall into the Wikipedia guidelines or can be classed as valid sources. FrostyCoolSlug (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I agree that UnrealIRCd does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. In other words, per
  WP:N. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: As above and references 11 thru 15 are not related to the page in any way but refer to other ircds Braindigitalis (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because (God forbid!) the article already lists multiple independent reliable sources. —Giggy 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many of these sources are notable as per wikipedia guidelines? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please re-read the reason for deletion, 7 of the sources listed are NOT independent, 7 others are NOT reliable sources (Under
    WP:RS), 2 of the sources are NOT relevant to the subject at hand (2 pages on OTHER IRCds), and the final source is NOT notable (Reference made in passing). All these non-relevant and non-notable sources have been added since the articles original original deletion to make it LOOK notable. 90.193.254.237 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I beg to differ about SearchIRC. Spidering is a reliable way to get data. It is just as reliable, perhaps more so, than if a team of reporters/scientists/whoever decided to find out and publish which IRCd was used the most. I would also like to take the time to point out that Braindigitalis and Nenolod have a POV when it comes to this for a few reasons:
  1. They both worked on another IRCd, InspIRCd, at one time or another.
  2. Their IRCd's article was deleted.
• No where in
  t|c|b) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Please. I've basically worked on every IRCd there is. My working on InspIRCd does not give me any particular POV. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are more references there than only SearchIRC (which, is probably the most reliable place to document a lot of the statistics). Just because the article isn't perfect source-wise is not a reason to delete it. SQL^{Query me!} 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why is my opinion worth any less than any other wikipedians, just because i am an expert in this field? Not to mention, the sources used by unrealircd here are the same sources used by the
  WP:Notable. Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I see reliable sources, although they may not be the best. Deleting it won't make it any better. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stwalkerster, if this is the case then i recommend different sources than searchirc. As stated here in the guides for notability (1) use of statistical data should be considered a primary source and avoided, can anyone recommend any good secondary sources such as books? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest any sources other than SearchIRC for that statistical data which are going to be as reliable, without original research? I think there will be problems in gathering that. Therefore SearchIRC is likely to be the best source of that available, and so is unavoidable. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree ;-) One book source already exists for this page, although only a passing mention if one exists others may too? In my humble opinion, book sources and notable news sources far outweigh searchirc (which often is broken, and was perpetually broken as far as ircd version statistics go) for very long periods of time, and there must be other book sources out there. Such sources would definitely change my vote to a keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So be it:
          • ISBN 059600687X
            . Retrieved 2008-08-07. One of the most popular and full-featured ircds is Unreal.
        • --
          t|c|b) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Comment: I don't really think one sentence in one book meets notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:40, 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 Speedy keep, bad faith nom by now-blocked sockpuppet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Work for Diddy

I Want to Work for Diddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

insignificant television show, has no bearing on society or culture.AndreaTrue77 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It just debuted two days ago. Give it a chance. I did find this which looks like a decent source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep No bearing on society or culture? Whether or not I like his music or clothing, a reality contest show on VH1 about winning a job with a musical icon? I think that is what our society and culture is all about these days...  :) But that notwithstanding, this VH1 listing and these mass Google News hits from the likes of
  notable
  .
• Keep: TV show on a major US cable channel starring one of the biggest (why?) music artists is definitely notable. Society and culture will just have to look out for themselves. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article needs major work, however. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nom's reason isn't very good. It's a TV show. On a major cable network. Starring a celebritiy. The nomination is
  pointy. "We don't need it" is not a reason to delete. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep —
  MuZemike (talk) 20:39, 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 --JForget 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander Timelines

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

Basically a dab page (or set index article) that was created two years ago, but still has only one blue link. At the same time, it's doubtful that any of the redlinked characters are notable enough for their own fictional timeline articles (and even Duncan is pushing it a lot under

• Delete. Quite unnecessary. These articles clearly aren't going to be written anytime soon, nor should we encourage people to do so. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In-universe information. I created three of the Duncan MacLeod timeline pages when I was a newbie, but now I understand the matter. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary index. It would be better to use templates and categories and link to articles that have real-world context about the franchise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factor X (Film)

Factor X (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is far too early, there's just not enough info on this yet. Ged UK (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pleanty of reliable sources - [14][15][16]. Not a violation of
  WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Explicity fails
  WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since it is not in production. This project was first announced in October 2006 and has not made serious leeway since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep (sorry, ignore this and see below, can someone tell me the markup for scoring through text?) it has reliable sources which suggest sufficient notability, such as its mention by the hollywood reporter. i've added some more info from the sources and referenced it better. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just put the answer on your talk page. Schmidt (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete just read
  wp:nff and the sources do not show that "principal photography" has begun. not sure why this rule applies as the film does appear to be sourced an notable, but according to that policy i must vote delete. sorry for the mix-up. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is a textbook case of
  WP:NFF explicitly says that films that have not commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. And IMDB is not a reliable source. Cliff smith ^talk 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. May pass
  NFF. The article is way premature. Perhaps move the 5 sentences to article on Gregory Allen Howard or New Line Cinema? Schmidt (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Psst... you !voted twice. :) Don't get your AFDs mixed up, now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Was not intentional. Struck second vote. Schmidt (talk) 22:51, 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 --JForget 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proalius

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

Probably hoax. Un-sourced, no search hits Beagel (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:V absolutely - there's nothing out there upon which to base an article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  hoax. Cliff smith ^talk 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Obvious, unsourced hoax. Note that article creator also has a copy of the article on their talk page. [17] Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 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) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter "The Killer" Abbandante

Peter "The Killer" Abbandante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN gangster... Appears to fail

Delete Per nom. One source is not enough to write a

fair and balanced article on any individual, particularly such a controversial one, and no other sources seem to turn up in a good faith search. And while I'm not going to move it while it's in the middle of an AfD, naming conventions would suggest that this page should be renamed "Peter Abbandante", as nicknames are generally not included in articles titles. A similar (although perhaps more passionate) sentiment was recently added to the talk page. In any case, if the article isn't deleted, it should at least be renamed. Cheers, CP 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Reputed gangster known for mainly for one alleged crime, and not a particularly exceptional crime by Mafia standards. Very thin on
  WP:BLP is a problem here too. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 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. Wizardman 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of joint school societies in Hong Kong

List of joint school societies in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of previously deleted redlinks. All non-notable student organizations. Mikeblas (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useful? I think not. Ian¹³/t 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read
  WP:USELESS, and consider expanding upon your reasoning. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 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 keep. John254 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Corliss

William R. Corliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this particular physicist has actually become "known" for his interests. Being featured in one article in

• Keep One article in New Scientist is a pretty good step towards proving notability. If there were concerns about his notability then you could have started by flagging the need for more references on the article, jumping to an AfD seems premature. (Emperor (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • New Scientist of late has been writing articles on increasingly sensationalized things. It's become the
    talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Note that the article was written in 1977. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. Not that the reputation of this magazine was ever very high.
        talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Do you have a cite for that assertion? Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that his book Science Frontiers was reviewed by USA Today in 1994 and Current Science in 1995. (I can't access the whole articles, but there are abstracts available at ProQuest. I can give the full citations, if anyone wants to track them down.) Corliss is fairly well known in the Fortean community. Most decent librarires will contain at least one of his books. Zagalejo^^^ 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well known in the "Fortean community" is not good enough to qualify for
    talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 1)Jerome Clark's Unexplained has an eight-paragraph entry on the Sourcebook Project. I'm sure you think Clark is a blithering idiot, but the entry should be enough to show that Corliss is considered important in that field. 2) Multiple book reviews have always been good enough to establish notability for a writer. Zagalejo^^^ 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no "field" to speak of, unless you mean
        talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • In truth, Corliss is mostly interested in geological, astronomical, and meteorological anomalies, rather than the typical UFO conspiracy stuff, so he's not quite as bad as the "tinfoil-hat wearers". But I digress. What would demonstrate notability for you? Here are a bunch of reviews from the journal Icarus. Is there something wrong with Icarus? Enlightenment me. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying that Corliss himself is a woo-woo; I'm saying that you are trying to establish notability of this guy through his fame at woo-woo conventions. Secondly, that Corliss publishes is rather unremarkable. Physicists publish, that's what they do. To determine whether a publishing physicist is notable, we use
            talk) 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Well, your original argument was that he is not "known". I was just trying to show that he is known to a certain sizeable community. I'm not sure if he fails WP:PROF. I think the case could be made that he passes point #4. Here's an interesting quote from the New York Times (William J. Broad. "The science corps wants a few more good heretics". New York Times. October 16, 1983. A18.):

"Among the more diligent is William R. Corliss, a trained physicist who worked as a science writer for the Federal Government and now directs The Sourcebook Project in Glen Arm, Md. For more than a decade, Mr. Corliss has searched out and catalogued the inexplicable. His volumes, which should number 25 when the project is completed, have attracted more than the curious. For instance, thermonuclear fusion experts, who confine atoms at high temperatures in a quest for a source of nearly limitless energy, have looked for inspiration to the phenomenon of ball lightning, which Mr. Corliss's books document in detail.

"It's intriguing stuff that serves a useful purpose," said Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist and science commentator. "Funding today tends to go to things that are tried and true. I'm glad these other guys are out there." Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephen Jay Gould quote is your classic red herring association... he's talking about

talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What "one event"? The article is clearly talking about a trend. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me just summarize what I have found:
  • 1) A review of Corliss' book from USA Today (Cullen Murphy. "Marvelling at nature's freak surprises". USA Today. April 14, 1994. D4.)
  • 2)Multiple reviews of Corliss' work in scholarly journals [18].
  • 3)A New York Times article saying that Corliss' work has attracted legitimate scientists.
  • 4) An eight paragraph profile of Corliss' Sourcebook Project in Jerome Clark's Unexplained (which, though it might not be enough by itself, clearly establishes that Corliss is well-known to Forteans.)
  • 5) Impressive WorldCat results (Strange Phenomena; A Sourcebook of Unusual Natural Phenomena is in at least 582 libraries; Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenonmena is in at least 959 libraries)
  • 6) A mention of his book Man and Atom in Britannica [19].
  • 7) Mentions in books like this and [20]. ***What more do you want? Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I just found out that the guy has a profile in Contemporary Authors [21], part of the
    Gale Literary Databases. Zagalejo^^^ 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. May be a crank, but Zagalejo has established that he's a notable one. Pburka (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:32, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Catterall

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

IMPORTANT - THIS ARTICLE IS DIFFERENT TO A PREVIOUS ARTICLE LISTED BELOW, SAME NAME BUT FOR A DIFFERENT PERSON. Blatant advertising and self promotion. Not notable enough to get an article in an encyclopaedia. Most edits are by one named account and 2 prominent anon account who only work on this article and others linked to it. Note that edit history of all three contributors are almost identical. Anons are suspected sockpuppets or others having conflict of interest. Added speedy delete on 10th June, but this was removed minutes later without reason given by another user. Dmol (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete just running hotels and/or being in a cover band doesn't confer notability. References all appear to be primary source, trivial, or press releases. So he fails both
  WP:VJasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 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, lifebaka++ 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:N as there are no independent secondary sources which cover the person. Assize (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Strong hints of self-promotion and appear to be no sources outside press releases and marketing material Murtoa (talk) 03:37, 11 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. Not much particpation, but more than enough time has passed. Yiğido means "heroes" and is the nickname of Sivasspor. No link to any style of playing could be found though.

Yiğido

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

This article lacks reliable third person sources to justify notability and seems to consist of original research. It has no reliable info and fails many criteria i.e.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to mostly be original research. Even if not, I doubt a particular style of football play would be notable (the only ones I can find are Total Football and Catenaccio and they're famous worldwide). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:20, 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, — Scientizzle 15:50, 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, lifebaka++ 18:36, 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. Wizardman 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneware webOS

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

Speedied as A7. Recreated 5 days later. I'm not sure that it's notable. And going round-and-round with speedies isn't really helping. Bringing to AfD for consensus. -- Swerdnaneb 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It needs at least one other independent reliable source with significant coverage to pass
  notability guidelines, in my opinion. It would be better if the article actually made a claim of notability and was written a bit less like an advertisement/list of features. swaq 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Added additional independent notability article, cleaned up article language to improve subjective nature David Kushner (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The source you added only seems to mention it in addition to MokaFive. I'm not sure I'd call that significant coverage. I was also turned off when I got sent to an advertisement page before being redirected to the actual article. swaq 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the same thing... until I got to page 2. -- Swerdnaneb 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the second page. It still seemed like a rather short blurb, but it is borderline. Are there any more independent sources? swaq 16:43, 25 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,

Talk 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete. No evidence of notability. Laudak (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage in technology press indicates notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 31 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, lifebaka++ 18:33, 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.

Jamie parmar

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

Nonnotable 14-year-old who is running through Death Valley for charity. Mentioned in one local news article, not enough to satisfy

• Delete - admirable that he is doing charity work, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability for him. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while his work and goal is certainly noble, it's not notable. --Alinnisawest(talk)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), article has been moved back to

123123

123123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. The original article, Flightstick, was prodded (see diff 1). Shortly after, the article was blanked by its creator (see diff 2). Then, the article was moved to 123123 (see diff 3). Then another user (in good faith, I'm sure) reverted the article, but the article was reprodded in the process, which is a violation of policy (see diff 4). To be consistent with policy, we have no choice but to assume a contested prod, and this article must go through AfD.

I further recommend speedy deletion of this article per

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yikes, this is a weird one. Move back to Flightstick then redirect or merge to
  Flight Stick is a redirect to joystick, the non-space version should redirect there as well. Pagrashtak 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  flightstick, merge to joystick, then delete. Flightstick might be a search term, but 123123 is a ridiculous name for an article about a joystick. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move first, having an Afd on an article title which is only in use because of an inappropriate move seems counter productive. Move back to
  Flightstick and either keep or merge and redirect from there. Move was clearly foolish but I can see why editor got fed up, original content when at Flightstick name should have been easily understood to be describing a common product type but was given an attempted db-nonsense tag [25] before rest of tagging saga ensued -Hunting dog (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It's quick, simple and gets the job done. All this talk about moving and merging seems to be overlooking the fact that there's no encyclopaedic content in the article. There are no sources nor any demonstration of notability. I also noted that it was blanked by its original author without any other significant contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — Move to
  MuZemike (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]