Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 6 August 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to

T/C) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Karen Lacy

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

Non-notable character Truckerr (talk) 23:59, 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 Delete A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc by User:SatyrTN. (non-admin closure) AmaltheaTalk 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Volten Sins

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

A band without a recording contract, only notable because is was a side project of a minor television actor, the main coverage of which is about how she was hit by a train at a level crossing. Wongm (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:35, 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

a/c) 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

G-Boy Status

G-Boy Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found for this album.

WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:38, 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 --JForget 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Rodriguez

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

I declined a speedy request because I felt it at least had assertions of notability, but it's hard to assess them without any sources verifying if, for example, any of the films or roles played are significant, or whether the actor played minor roles in nn films. Some sourcing would really help clear this up. Dweller (talk) 23:19, 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) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Liversidge

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

Subject does not appear to be notable; no reliable sources —

t c 22:44, 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 G3 by Tanthalas39 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Rodriguez Productions

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

Delete for non-notability. No google return hits at all.

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as G3 pure vandalism. Report on users actions has been left for AIAV to handle.Report included below. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thedarkness2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account, account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User received no warnings, but his vandalism campaign is so wide that i will not even get into that. User created and altered several article to include himself as being the most important developer, publisher er all.

user then created The Darkness 2 (video_game), mostly a copyover from the first darkness page, again with subtle changed to hide the copy, and again listing him as the main person. After that the user created an article on the company (Which was a redlink) luckily failed to make it convincing, by adding himself as being 13 year old. Im cleaning the mess he made up now, could take a while though.. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:52, 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) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Karlz

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

My apologies, Twinkle blew this one up (and thanks, TPH!). Anyway, non-notable local duo doing covers of other bands' stuff, completely fails

 RGTraynor  16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Completing unfinished nom for

User:RGTraynor, apparently Twinkle goofed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:01, 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 delete as

blatant advertising. The growing consensus here is also clear. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Blink Me

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

Non-notable, unreleased youtube video, fails

WP:N among others. See this diff for creator's comment about sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - I tried an
    ignore all rules speedy but it was declined. – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 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 due to improvements to the article since nomination. If there is a desire to merge this elsewhere, please start a discussion on the article's talk page.

a/c) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Cockblock

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

This seems like something that belongs in a pickup-artist guide. It features over-analysis of a very lightweight subject as if it were drawn from a work of satire or that someone just wanted to see how often they could work the word "cockblock" into an article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, indeed, field-tested and published theory from leading figures in the burgeoning
    talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - When you take a minor societal phrase and inflate it into a full page of strategy as if it is an Audubon field guide, that's lightweight. The 'burgeoning seduction community?' This is like something out of the Zombie Survival Guide where a similar lightweight subject was fleshed out at great length for entertainment value. The article currently reads as puerile over-expansion on a non-encyclopedic subject. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My use of amateur is supposed to imply they are not professional, respected psychologists. The people that are quoted may make money from their claims but their conclusions are not taken particularly seriously outside that circle. And are not rigorously studied within it. -- SiobhanHansa 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak Delete or Merge to
seduction community. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, common term used widely outside the seduction community such as wingman. Mathmo Talk 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or relist. Users voting for deletion raised some valid concerns. The article only had one reliable source. To address these concerns, I rewrote the entire article to include multiple sources, and I removed all the blog sources. Some of the new sources are about the term and engage in extensive discussion of it (e.g. types of cockblocking), so it passes
    seduction community, because of its size, and because the term is used outside it (by college students, by political commentators, and as the name of a lesbian dance club). Since the article is completely rewritten with the goal of accommodating the concerns of this AFD, I propose that this AFD be closed. If my rewrite is deemed unsatisfactory, then it should be relisted for a new AFD with a clean slate (since this AFD already contains votes for deletion that do not apply to the current form of the article). --SecondSight (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
SecondSight - I think you improved the article greatly and I've adjusted my recommendation. But I take issue with the use of student newspapers (or any newspaper using its journalists' opinions rather than reporting on research) as the source for "reasons for". This is still the same amateur psychology as the blogs exhibited. The disambiguation issues are minor passing mentions and without those sections it's just about how the phrase is used within the seduction community. -- SiobhanHansa 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that student newspapers aren't the highest quality sources around, but they still seem to qualify as
WP:RS requires that the authors of reliable sources "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Surely a college student writing for a college publication is "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to the usage of the term "cockblock" among college students. This article doesn't have the best reliable sources in the world, but it has reliable sources. Are there any guidelines or precedents for using college newspaper sources? --SecondSight (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd agree they're probably fairly authoritative in relation to the usage of the term but that's not what they're being used to support. They're being used to support why cockblocking happens - and that's psychology (or sociology) and I'd hazard fairly sophisticated psychology at that. I don't think any journalist's view - in the absence of other qualifications - would be appropriate for that. If they were quoting experts it would be a different matter but they appear to be writing their own opinions. -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment- sad to say, there are
    WP:RS that mention this [7] maybe due to the seduction fans mad keenness to sell the ideas, which we've seen here. As such I can't in all conscience vote 'delete'. However, this one isn't as notable as Neg (seduction). We maybe don't need all these as separate articles. Sticky Parkin 02:23, 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; prior AfD is relevant, but contains only a nomination and one comment, so I hesitate to consider it strongly binding. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringleader

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


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. Tiptoety talk 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine)

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

Contested prod. Non notable student magazine, with the only claim to notability being that it is the only magazine created ny undergraduate students. No reliable sourcing as well (Self-published or biased) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources can be found.

talk) 04:23, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riaphone

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

Presented as though it were a generic name for a type of computer program. As far as I can tell, the only usage for the word is the name of a non-notable company. Sgroupace (talk) 21:05, 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 merge to Daisy Turner.  Sandstein  06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Turner (slave)

Alex Turner (slave) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

An interesting biographical entry, and probably an interesting man too, but the only references for this are two local histories. These may well be reliable, but two smalltown sources aren't enough to demonstrate notability: otherwise, every person of much of any prominence in any community (for example, every

local politician) would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

By the way: please note that there has been canvassing in favor of keeping this article by Hmose. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • canvassing was inadvertant, sorry. Thought that prior author(s) should be informed per AFD rules.Hmose (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Daisy Turner, due to lack of notability. The Alex Turner article is a much better article than the article about Daisy Turner, but she has a much stronger claim to notability than he does, and his interesting story would fit very nicely into the article about her. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    talk) 05:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge There is enough material for one notable and well developed article. --Stormbay (talk) 18:43, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V. R. Gopala Menon

V. R. Gopala Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Religious person cited in a website related to a notable religion. Other than this reference, there is no reason to believe this person to be notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 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 keep, though noting the nomination does not appear to have been made in bad faith (as was alleged). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode)

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

Unnotable television episode from

talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

They aren't knee-jerk. I'm a member of the TV project and cleaning up TV and episode articles is what I do. The episodes are all unnnotable as noted in the edit summaries and the deletion note above. No one has even touched most of these for a month or longer until I actually added REAL content to the Masters of Horror article and created the episode list it hadn't even had before. While not actually help fix by expanding the summaries in the episode list instead of trying to keep these mini-novellas that serve no valid purpose. Of course, your uncivil reply to the polite question on your talk page really answers the question already. --
talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, you're part of some knee jerk deltionist collective? Same thing. Well at leats you AFDed this one rather than just redirecting it, which is particularly unhelful as it doesn't really notify anyone or give anyone a chance to work on it. Why are you deletionists always in such a desperate rush anyway? Artw (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. DCEdwards1966 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Brief plot summaries are OK as part of proper coverage of notable fictional material. Extensive plot summaries, particularly when they form the whole content of the article, are not OK and especially in a case like this where the episode's whole claim to notability is inherited from the series. Reyk YO! 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to Weak Keep because of the expansion and sourcing that's happened since I first voted. I'm still not entirely convinced about notability- comments by the director and lead actor aren't decisive- but I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. Reyk YO! 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that this is a case of
    WP:POINT. The nominator actually wished to redirect the article to a list of episodes in the manner of other disruptive editors such as TTN. Because other editors have opposed this, the article is brought here as a forum-shopping tactic. Note that we have no discussion on the article's talk page, which ought to have been the first stage in dispute resolution. As for the article, we might consider merging it with the main article on the prize-winning story: The Screwfly Solution and deletion would be obviously unhelpful in this. By the way, the excellent story concerns an plague which causes people to go on a spree of irrational destruction which they rationalise with a bizarre ideology. There turns out to be an ulterior motive behind this. Food for thought... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, or merge and redirect to a list of episodes. Please note that
    talk) 13:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please explain why, if the material is too long, you would merge to an article which, by its nature, will be even longer. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much summary without real world context. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have spent several hours raising the number of sources to the auspicious number of 8, so demonstrating that the nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is a blatant falsehood and violates the emphatic guidance of
    WP:BEFORE: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Note also that Collectonian is starting to establish a pattern of singling out episodes with a strong feminist subtext to bring here. (c.f. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs
    ) 06:11, August 9, 2008
  • Keep Colonel Warden has done a good job improving the article and it has plenty of potential to be improved further. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep - I would like to volunteer to tighten the summaries and improve the articles, for a start. Deleting all of these episode articles would result in an unacceptable loss of information, as little included in them will ever make it into the list article. The list should have been created before the individual article pages, but hey, things don't always proceed in an ideal fashion. I feel that the case for deletion according to WP:EPISODE is not as clear cut as it's being presented, either. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, no one is saying delete them all. Indeed, I've expanded the one for "Imprint" (the unaired episode). The discussion on merge/redirect for the rest is proceeding on the main talk page and the episode talk page. Right now, most of the individual articles have little information besides the plot summaries and IMDB copy/paste trivia. For the plots, if they were pared down to the appropriate length (200-400 words) they would be quite welcome is the current episode list and much preferable to teasers there now. Of course, if you feel the episode list is an appropriate split from the main article, you also want to say so at
talk · contribs) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I would prefer a solution where existing articles are kept, improved, and linked from your ep list, which we should also keep. I will go say as much at the talk page as well. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the edits thathave been made to establish notability. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The minimum for notability has been established and surpassed. It's now a nice little article. A bit of plot tightening wouldn't hurt. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge and redirect) to the LOE per
    WP:NOT#PLOT. Clear cut. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Go look up moot. Delete and Redirect per Collectonian below to the list at MoH. Eusebeus (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • moot, adj. open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 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 Speedy Delete. Deleted as

WP:CSD#A7 by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Red Pepper Chinese Cuisine

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

The subject asserts no notability to be an encyclopedic entry.

talk) 19:44, 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 both as neither pass

WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if they make their debuts, and I'll restore them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Waide Fairhurst

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

Contested PROD, reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play, this is

WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league / competition. --Jimbo[online] 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating Andrew Boyce for the exact same reason.

Actually, according to this[8], the game has already finished and neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played. Nsk92 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral. The Aug 9 game has already finished but neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played.[9] Nsk92 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gtsricky. Restore if/when they make their respective professional appearances. –  LATICS  talk  03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not
    just a tad premature Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails both
    WP:N. Userfy and recreate if ever appropropriate to do so. Doesn't belong in mainspace until they meet criteria for inclusion (they may never play at the highest level). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Regarding "may never play at the highest level", I think you may be looking at the wrong part of
The Football League, which is a fully professional football league in the U.K. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
He hasn't made an appearance for Doncaster as of yet (other than friendlies, which don't count as I understand the policy). He may God/Allah/Buddah/whomever forbid get hit by a bus tonight and never play for them in a fully competitive match. He therefore fails
WP:N either. Hence my userfy suggestion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 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 no consensus/keep. Batch nominations can be problematic, if users strongly support the inclusion of certain pages and do not comment significantly on others; it may be appropriate to nominate some of these pages individually in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Légions Noires

AfDs for this article:
Les Légions Noires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
William Roussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Belketre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March to the Black Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Mütiilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hail Satanas We Are the Black Legions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vampires of Black Imperial Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Millenium (Grimly Reborn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Majestas Leprosus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rattenkönig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorrow Galaxies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Remains of a Ruined, Dead, Cursed Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New False Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Satanicum Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vlad Tepes (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A huge

WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, Metal Archives has been deemed an unreliable source on numerous occasions. Being on Metal Archives means absolutely nothing - a band that has released 5 copies of a demo can end up on there. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. No clear consensus to merge, but that may continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Circle (traffic circle)

Berlin Circle (traffic circle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A critical part of our extensive encyclopedic treatment of NJ traffic circles? How 'bout

incidental road feature? Eusebeus (talk
) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Alternatively, editors may wish to consider the merits of merge & redirect to
List of traffic circles in New Jersey.[reply
]

  • Merge to
    Route 73. This may be a better target as the history of the circle and this route are closely related. --Polaron | Talk 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Stifle, so once the object in question ceases to exist, should we delete the article? Can we extend it to people? Once they die, we delete their articles? Kushal (talk) 23:22, 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. --jonny-mt 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuddhanandaa Brahmachari

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

Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agama Yoga

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

Non notable religious organization. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The result of the Afd discussion on Swami Vivekananda Saraswati was to merge into the Agama Yoga article because he is not notable. Like its founder, Agama Yoga is also not notable. There needs to be reliable sources provided that demonstrate how the subject is notable. As there are none, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article title leads a user to believe thta it is a "type of yoga". However the article does not reveal anything different about it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Fact that the article's name may or may not need changing is irrelevant for the discussion regarding if the article should be kept or deleted, i invite you to open a discussion regarding the article's name in the articles talk page Tomeryogi (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Swami Vivekananda Saraswati himself is not notable, and this is not a type of Yoga, its a promotional ad that is using Wikipedia as a vehicle. Wikidās ॐ 12:51, 13 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 merge to Destiny's Child. --jonny-mt 02:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anjel

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

This band fails

WP:MUSIC. They released no albums, split years ago and return no relevent G-hits (aside from links to Wikipedia). for "Anjel", for "Anjel" + "music", for "Anjel" + "band". Anjel's only claim to notability is the fact that two of its members were former members of Destiny's Child. Information about Anjel would be better included in the bios for these members and Destiny's Child. The band itself doesn't warrant an article. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 18:21, 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. Wizardman 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyricus Teaching Order

Lyricus Teaching Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If ever I saw an "indiscernible or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I've read this very carefully multiple times. I've also read

iridescent 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 18:20, 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. The two last "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems that are raised in the nomination, and are discounted.  Sandstein  22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A decades old hoax that appears not to have garnered much if any

Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Seven references, including a book, already establishes the idea of the group as notable, hoax or not. Even urban legends can be notable. However article is presenting the UFO theory as fact and it needs to qualify a lot of those statements and include criticism of the theory. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That was my first impulse, certainly, but sources 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 5 are self-published. The NYT source is irrelevant (and probably
    Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 18:20, 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.

koran

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 G4 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Future album, fails

WP:HAMMER. TN‑X-Man 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment- So we have. A pretty obvious G4. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous afd resulted in a delete and redirect, so I wasn't sure that G4 applied. But I guess it does. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:52, 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. --jonny-mt 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game of "S.K.A.T.E."

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

This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. It fails

WP:TOYS. Its only reference is a skateboarding forum, and google returns nothing promising. To quote Travellingcari, "No evidence of this game's notability". Leonard(Bloom) 18:00, 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 DELETE. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Law

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

17-year-old who's done well in science fair competitions. All the sources refer to his placing in these competitions. I don't think this makes him a notable "scientist". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This discussion may include the use of sockpuppetry by users Pdfreeman, ambcfoundation, Bpaftw, and Pbstrypsin. A formal on going investigation is in place at

talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

— Pbstrypsin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note The article on the Pasteur effect talks about the "inhibiting effect of oxygen on the fermentation process", which apparently has nothing to do with tumors. The Warburg effect was discovered in the 50's in tumor cells. That article cites some recent discoveries on this effect. None of this mentions the Pasteur effect or the Warburg effect. It really does not look to me like Law has discovered the cure for cancer, unfortunately, unless something escapes me here. As for the nonprofit, if that organisation is notable, Law could be mentioned in an article about that nonprofit, that still does not establish notability for a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think two technical points need to made. Firstly, fermentation not only occurs in yeast cells, but it also occurs in tumor cells. Just read the scientific journal article by Warburg himself, <http://www.jgp.org/cgi/reprint/8/6/519>. Law's paper is arguing oxygen does not inhibit the fermentation process of glioma tumors (in other words his conclusion is contradicting "the Pasteur effect"). Although, the Warburg effect was documented in tumors in the 50's, scientists did not know gliomas exhibited the Warburg effect. Otto Warburg was working with sarcomas and carcinomas not gliomas (refer the the journal article for verification). Secondly, even though Law's abstract doesn't mention the Warburg and Pasteur effect by name, his conclusion is consistent with Wikipedia's description. Fermentation takes place through an anaerobic process called glycolysis. The fact that oxygen does not inhibit fermentation (and therefore glycolysis) means that gliomas have a "glycolytic-dependent phenotype" (notice that phrase is in the title of his paper). This contribution is noteworthy; he doesn't have to find the cure to cancer to be notable. The fact that we are debating the scientific merits of a kid's paper is a testament to his notable contribution to the scientific dialogue. Pdfreeman (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Thanks for that explanation Pdfreeman! However, as far as I can see, nobody ever claimed that the Pasteur effect occurred in glioma cells? So why is it such a big deal that somebody comes up with a hypothesis that it indeed doesn't occur? And if this indeed is such an important discovery, why has this only been published as a science fair abstract and not in a scientific journal? --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. To answer Nrswanson, there are two levels of argument to keep this article. First, even if we disregarded age, “challenging the general assumption that glioma cells exhibit the Pasteur effect” is a wiki-worthy accomplishment in itself. Such a finding is not temporary, but rather a newly established theory in scientific debate. Even if Law decided not to pursue science later in life, his discovery will still remain (scientific theories don’t expire over time). Second, if we acknowledge his age, an article about a “child prodigy/extremely gifted teen” with a substantial amount of publicity would suffice in keeping this article. Science fair rules require students to construct their own original research plan, so he must’ve directed his own study. Bpaftw (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Bpaftw appears to have only made three edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and five total. The current version (as I type this) of his very impressive user page[12] appears to be a clone of that of another, well-established user[13]. Jll (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment The same is also true of two other advocates of keeping the article who have made few other edits outside of it. Pbstrypsin's user page [14] looks identical to Art LaPella's page[15]. And Pdfreeman, who apparently spends a lot of time editing the Royal Military College of Canada article according to her user page[16] (but not her edit history), has a user page similar to a recent version of a user called Victoriaedwards[17] who does put a lot of work into that. Now these discrepencies shouldn't really matter, but they make me a little uncomfortable because if Pbstrypsin says he is Art LaPella and isn't then how can I trust those assertions of his which are relevent to this discussion, for example that Brandon's discovery is a notable one. Note I have linked to the historic versions of these pages as I see them now. I hope this is some almighty cock-up in my computer, or perhaps wikipedia's database, and I can make a grovelling apology for taking these advocates' names in vain, but that isn't how it looks to me at the moment. Jll (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
????? I just had a look at Pbstrypsin's user page and it is as Jll says, it's identical to that of Art LaPella's. But here is something even stranger: Pbstrypsin created a talk page with several messages from other users on it, but apparently there's only one single edit to this talk page: his own. The same thing happens with Bpaftw, who crated a talk page containing already a message purportedly from 2005. Now I know that I have to
assume good faith, but this looks to me like there is one person trying to create different "personalities" that look legit. Note that none of the people whose userpages were copied ever edited anything related to this AfD. Sorry, despite AGF, I have to say that this looks very fishy to me. Jll, are you a detective in real life or something?? :-)) --Crusio (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes this does seem fishy. Perhaps we should bring this up at a suspected
talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but I don't reallly know how to (and in addition it is getting late over here, so I need to get some sleep...) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and filed a report. See note above.
talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. I am not a detective, but I was carefully reading this discussion to help me form a view. I was curious that someone had been awarded nine barnstars for a handful of edits. Jll (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are jumping the gun on calling his work a theory. At this point it is only a published study (and not even that really as Crusio has pointed out). In order for it to become a theory, numerous other studies will have to be done by other scientists to validate the research and its findings. At this point the study hasn't been sufficiently substantiated to know if it will survive the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community. That process takes years. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether or not Law's study will have a lasting impact or not as of right now. Notability based on the research is therefore really not established yet. Also, theories do go away as science improves itself and new discoveries are made. (It doesn't happen too often but it does happen) Only scientific laws are so well established. Furthermore, he clearly fails the guidelines for
talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - Notability (and independent verification) of effect in tumour cells dubious. Non-profit organisation appears to be non-notable. As for "child prodigy/extremely gifted teen" — he's done well in science fairs just like many other people. If he were, say, 5, and competing against 17 year olds then this argument would be more convincing. Jll (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me add that if one takes some time to browse through the references given in the article, that it turns out that Law did not win any of those Intel International Science and Engineering Fairs, at best he shared third place in just one category (and look how many categories there are, how many people share first, second or third place). These competitions are held yearly, there must be hundreds of teens that did at least as well as Law in these. The same goes for "Minnesota Scholars of Distinction in Science", according to the source given, he is one of three such scholars in his own school alone. For someone who developed a "cancer vaccine (per Pdfreeman above), that is a bit meager. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly not notable accomplishments, rather a PR campaign around his activities. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neo renaissance movement

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

Very new artistic/musical movement. Even for a new organisation the number of Google hits seems very small and the article lacks any independent refs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 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 delete a7, doesn't assert notability, being mentioned in a Soulja Boy song isn't notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab' (Rapper)

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

Non-notable rap artist, has yet to release an album, fails

WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Actually, the article says that SouljahBoy had a song reach the Billboard charts. This artist has not. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 17:41, 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 --JForget 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyeing felt

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


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 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from poor design

Argument from poor design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion because the name of the article consitutes original research. The phrase "argument from poor design" does not appear in any cited source, gets zero hits on Google Scholar, and gets only hits that derive from Wikipedia on Google Web. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a well-written article, but it should probably be renamed to
    WP:NOR. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:18, 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. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korcan Çelikay

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

Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 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.

You guys might want to bring this back because with the first two starting goalkeepers on IR for Besitkas he is their new starting goalkeeper and made an appearance for them in the Turkish Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.67.67 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor baby

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not in general and certainly not for bits of stray jargon. This article is not an encyclopedic topic. At best the concept of an "anchor baby" could maybe be mentioned as a section, with proper cites, in some more appropriate article, but it just doesn't fit Wikipedia article standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetback (slur) should also probably be deleted or merged elsewhere as an example of some real topic, but the rest you named have no bearing on whether this article should exist because they aren't merely neologistic jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously suggesting one of the most notable ethnic slurs in American history be "deleted or merged"?! --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I will suggest that the request for deletion originated due to some 'unknown' person's dislike for the term, and not due to any real issue pertaining to its worth. The justification for the deletion request itself is weak. Then again, the article has gone through several editing wars... Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really used in most of those articles - it's just a wikilink or mentioned in passing as a derogatory term. Ethnic slurs are problematic, but we don't avoid problematic content here. I'll add my "keep" vote below, on that basis. Wikidemo (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Leonard.
    talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Agreed. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Highly visible and controversial topic which occurs frequently in political discourse. Nomination borders on reckless; 67k Google hits, 282 google news hits, with frequent mentions in the headlines or lead paragraphs. RayAYang (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable political jargon relating to US immigration policy, backed by reliable sources. Conceivably a subtopic of something else, but better off standalone as there are multiple choices. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Leonard. - Schrandit (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, I agree with Leonard. I have never heard of any term which does not have the potential to be an encyclopedia topic. I believe the deletion criteria exist to remove articles which contain no discernible factual information, or which exist solely to 'shock' or 'entertain' the reader. If a person might search for a term on Google to find out what it is and learn about it, then it belongs on Wikipedia. In fact, googling Anchor Baby to learn about the term is how I first came to the Wikipedia article, proof in itself that it contains encyclopedic value. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I would also point out that many of the issues pertaining to the term have only recently gained their own Wikipedia pages. In fact, Anchor baby contains more information about Chain migration than Chain migration. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedia articles about words are not automatically "dicdefs". This is a rather good encyclopedia article about this word, well written and fully sourced. An article like this is totally outside the scope of a dictionary and totally within the scope of Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable epithet. Article is documented with reliable secondary sources. As for the nominator's suggestion to delete/merge Wetback (slur), I would oppose that also. That term is even more notable, and has a much longer history than does "anchor baby". In fact, the "wetback" article should probably be expanded, given its long history, and the likely amount of reliable information available about the epithet. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The topic could probably be covered adequately by merging its content and sources into
    Birthright citizenship in the United States of America and turning "anchor baby" into a redirect. If the existing article is kept, the amount of overlap with material in the "birthright citizenship" article should definitely be minimized. Richwales (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Moderately notable neologism. I know all about
    N word is an article about the objectionable slang rather than the people who it's applied to, so is this article about the word and not the US citizens who some people wish were not citizens. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Incidentally, as a response to the above I do not think we should merge with "birthright citizenship", which is a broader concept that most people consider legitimate and not worthy of derogation. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The particularly derogatory use of this term, distinct from the simple notion of "birthright citizenship," merits its keeping its own entry.
    Townlake (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nom, a source not cited in the article shows this topic is at least historically notable. Thanks all for your input, it helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:ORG. Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Where are the sources for that level of attendance? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. However based on the size of the building you have to assume a minimum of 8,000 --T-rex 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go here which backs up the claim with a reliable source. There is also this, published in a reliable publication. If they are not good enough, how about the LA Times here.
talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The LA Times fragment is almost 20 years old, the adherents.com listing is sketchy at most and the Christianity Today article is an obituary from 2001. These can be cited for what they are but still, I think they're a bit shakey. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the exact number, I think everyone here agrees that it is big. Personally I consider any church with over 2000 to be significant, so this is way over that on all counts --T-rex 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I initially suggested deletion, but I'm still on the fence...I did find this, which shows that while it is one of the country's larger churches, the 20,000 number given is twice the actual number. The age of the church shouldn't factor. Most First Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian churches are going to be over 100 years old...hence "First": they are the oldest of that congregation in the city they are in. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, looking at photos on the church's website, I did a rough count of the seats in the sanctuary. No way are there 20,000, not even close. My quick guess was maybe 8,000 but this doesn't mean all those seats are filled every week. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think my first quick guess was way too high. I don't believe I see seating for anything more than 2000, maybe a bit less. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you 1) Pick up on the fact that they have two services on Sunday, 2) that "membership" does not necessarily equal "Sunday attendance", 3) consider the possibility that you may have missed entire sections and balconies in your counting chairs from a picture, and 4) that the article cites "Weekly Attendance" which includes multiple services during the week and quite possibly smaller classes?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, given extra services, 4000. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your later edit, given the angle of the photo and symmetry of the room, no I don't think I missed entire balconies and sections. Truth be told, I added several hundred to my count when I was done, because one could squeeze lots of folks onto those benches. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Fundamental Baptist, Hyles became the church's pastor in 1959. Attendance at the congregation in Hammond, a community in northwestern Indiana just south of Chicago, grew from a few hundred to 20,000 today as Hyles sent hundreds of buses to neighboring areas to bring people to the church each week. Christianity Today "In Memoriam: Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74" April 2, 2001. Good enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that source. I'm also aware of the buses. Hundreds of them? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite... what do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The church keeps (or kept) a fleet of hundreds of buses? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yeah. It was one of the largest churches in the country at the time and was a pioneer in the bus ministry efforts. Like the sources stated. I'm gathering that you think that they did not have a fleet of buses, or not that many buses... which, of course, they did...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION Is this entire AfD based on the nominator not believing the contents of the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, going by the sources (or lack of them), I still believe this topic fails
WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, let's take a look at the reasons given in the header: "Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest." Lessie... the "Not sourced significance" are well sourced by Christianity Today, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times... and the "internal church disputes" involve investigations and records from "Cullman (Alabama) Police" to the FBI. What more could you possibly want? What's your motivation behind this AFD nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are passing references, not significant coverage. If you're looking for a
WP:COI motive behind this AfD, you won't find one. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, so the nominator doesn't beleive the information (hundreds of buses) and then doesn't think that the source is adequate enough because it is "only in passing" even though there are multiple qualified sources (including one leading paragraph in a sample article above) to support the data. If that's all there is, I still stand by my position of keep and leave it to the admins to make the best decision on this afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't think there is a conflict of interest on the nominator, I'm just not seeing any logic behind the nomination. I'm sure it's a good faith nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, any editor can take part in this AfD discussion and whatever an admin may do will be limited to closing the discussion based on whatever consensus (or lack) comes up. Speaking for myself, I think the sources are mostly adequate as sources, but don't support the notability of this topic because they only mention the church itself in passing. I'm skeptical about the numbers because the sources on these are not very stirring but the pitch is, I don't see meaningful independent coverage of the church itself. Thanks for talking about this with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep largest church in the state, obvious keep. If that fact turns out to be incorrect, then we fix it... but until then I will assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the meaningful independent coverage of this church as an organization? The sources listed in the article are either publications clearly linked to the church itself, or news stories about criminal allegations against individuals linked with the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the "criminal allegations" articles actually do have meaningful information, like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times article... granted, the article could be cleaned up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but these sources have to do with individuals, not the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't negate the information in them about the church.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is worth pointing out that the individual involved in those controversies already has an article. Essentially, this article right now is merely serving as a different method of presenting those controversies. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Fix It this is a wiki! If you don't like the content, edit away! But that is a content issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. As it's the hub around which a number of criminal acts revolve, and the number of allegations more directly about it, including the Jonestown vibe of the place, and how supported they are, I say keep. Further, the number of comments reported on by pastors when in the position of pastor of the place shows that it's the center of the community viewpoint as well. Unfortunately, if kept, the article will almost certainly need massive copy editing, as the grammar's beyond atrocious there, and permanent semi-protection and watch-listing by numerous editors willing to keep it neutral, given the history of vandalism from IPs purported to be associated with the community. ThuranX (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the church been noted in independent sources as a hub of crime/scandal? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean besides these (allegations, not proof of course)?
  1. By Debra Gruszecki. Church's alleged acts questioned. Local lawyer charges Northwest Indian Times October 22, 1991
  2. Voyle A Glover. Fundamental seduction: The Jack Hyles case. Schrerville, In. : Brevia Pub., 1990.
  3. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  4. "Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case," Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1991.
  5. Baptism by innuendo Northwest Indiana Times May 19, 1993
  6. "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
  7. "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union -Tribune. San Diego, California: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
  8. "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy" Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colorado.: August 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
  9. Debra Gruszecki FBI won't continue with church sex abuse probe. Not enough Northwest Indiana Times" May 19, 1993
  10. "No Investigation of Church in Abuse Cases, Police Say" Chicago Tribune May 24, 1993
  11. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  12. "Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit". Christianity Today (2006). Retrieved on May 1, 2006.
  13. Debra Gruszecki. Suit claims rape at church Northwest Indiana Times October 4, 1997
  14. "Blind Man Says Church Bans Him, After He Gets Guide Dog," The Associated Press, July 6, 1984.
  • You'll never get rid of this one. There are too many people who desperately want the article in order to include their POV on the controversial characters involved. Forget the past Gastroturfing and other nonsense, prune it right back to what is verifiable from impartial independent sources (no churches, no newspapers, perhaps news magazines and maybe books on the history of the baptist movement), then lock the sucker and leave the peanut gallery to fight it out on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing we may not agree on is, one can't lock a page down like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine reported in 1975 that they were hitting 14,000 in "weekly turnout", spurred by around 10,000 brought in by 230 buses, and a record attendance of 30,560 back in the 1970's. Hmmm... Even if the building is empty today, that's notable any way you slice it. But go ahead, don't beleive it... if you don't think they fit them in, then why not go to the building yourself and count chairs? I'm sure that TIME MAGAZINE did that back in the 1970's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33 years ago Time said they (likely) had the "world's biggest Sunday school." This isn't cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 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 Deleted per

patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

General Theory about Compensations

General Theory about Compensations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a badly written essay whose seconded

WP:SPA anon-IP. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:09, 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/selective merge. Although there are a number of policy-based calls for deletion below, the consensus seems to be to keep the article so that the relevant content can be merged where it needs to go. As Nrswanson (wisely) points out below, this task is too complicated for a single closing admin to handle, so I leave it to the normal editing process to sort out. --jonny-mt 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District

List of elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

An

indiscriminate list of elementary schools in a school district. The only information about each is Principal's name, address, phone number, ect. so this can easily be defined under "Wikipedia is not a directory." Tavix (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Indiscriminate collection of information (see
    WP:IINFO). I would suggest merger with Peoria Unified School District, except that the parent article already includes a list, and the list article consists almost entirely of nonencyclopedic details, almost entirely copy-pasted from http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/Schools/default.aspx . The lengthy part about Marshall Ranch Elementary appears to have been a separate article that was supposed to be merged into this list (probably after an AfD discussion), but the "merger" was done by dropping the entire article (which is full of non-notable details) into the middle of the list. Each of these elementary schools could have roughly one paragraph in Peoria Unified School District, not to include phone numbers, hours of operation, and similar trivia. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Repeating and expanding from the above. Almost the entire contents of the article are copied and pasted from pages such as http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/sites/ApacheEl/default.aspx . (It's probably not a copyvio because the PUSD website does not appear to be copyrighted.) --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I am nominating this article for DELETION, and this is the place to discuss such things. I highly disagree with your nonsense comment about trying to discuss this elsewhere when this is a deletion discussion. Please do not come back here again if you want to have that attitude towards these kind of discussions. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down Tavix. I believe DGG was merely saying that decisions regarding splits and mergers will need to be decided after the AFD is closed (assuming the decision is keep) which is true. I don't think he was saying that the deletion discussion itself should be moved elsewhere or was in anyway devaluing this conversation. Please assume good faith.
    talk) 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It is a valid option when the article can easily be merged by the closing administrator. In this case, however, although a merge is probably warranted it would be too complicated of a problem for the closing admin. The reason for this is because the best way to merge the information is not immediately obvious and would therefore require further discussion among editors interested in this page. I would say that the admin could tag the article for merge if it is kept but the actual merging process will take some further discussion and time beyond this AFD.
    talk) 16:28, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comic's Civil War reading list

Marvel Comic's Civil War reading list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, original research Tomdobb (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Civil War (comics) article is in need of a chronology such as this, but to simply merge into a new section would overpower the original article. I therefore recommend that we place this information in a collapsible template and place it in Civil War (comics). AfD hero (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. AfD hero (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is a very good example of original research. The first sentence practically screams it. Tavix (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I raised concerns over this article when it started - my suggestion was that we should split off the "tie-ins" and trade paperback sections of Civil War (comics) and merge them in her making something like a "Civil War publications" article (Civil War is already large and the obvious split would be in that area). I am not sure if this is a workable approach (perhaps slimming down Civil War would be a better way of doing it) but the article isn't viable as it stands (I mention that it is the kind of thing better suited to the publisher's site or a fan site) but there is potential to rework it. If not then transwiki it to the Marvel Comics Database Project on Wikia and redirect this to Civil War (comics). (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Do as Emperor says, and/or merge into Civil War (comics) and redirect. Page could be reworked, but is no good as-is. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Civil War (comics) - this list is a tad bit arbitrary, and is not a notable subject for a list --T-rex 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, comics trivia, POV. JIP | Talk 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite Jmbranum (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per AfD hero if the reading order can be sited (although it would obviously be primary source). Otherwise it is OR and probably doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very wise Boz and Emperor. There isn't even any real, encyclopedically viable information here to merge. Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be OR. Ifany of the links are good they might be salvagable for the main article. Artw (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very wise Boz and Emperor as well. Hiding T 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody's homecooked reading list for comic books. I understand the concept of it, but it's OR and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:10, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Yitra

Bet Yitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Irretrievably
    WP:SOAPBOXing the views held by members of the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Strong delete - per nom, and per WP:N. I must say this one of the very few articles I've seen for which there are zero online sources. -
Tan 15:55, 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 as he fails

WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

José Antonio Solano

José Antonio Solano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young Spanish footballer who does not meet

WP:PROD contested by User:Gundam gx, the article creator, with no summary at all. Angelo (talk) 15:34, 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 keep. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagbhatananda Gurudevar

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

Bio of religious activist. Although he may be associated with notable people, he is not notable by himself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now because he is famous. Will look around for references in due course. Tintin 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't keep the word about the references. Hopefully Priyanath's refs are sufficient for the time being. Tintin 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, waiting for Tintin to produce sources, else delete as

SPAM per nom. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply I have looked for references and was not able to find any. I hope there are other sources that I was not able to find. There are two issues that I am concerned with. What is Vagbhatananda Gurudevar famous for, and what reliable sources back up this claim to being famous? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a keep because he is fairly well-known in Kerala as a social reformer & philosopher, and his association with Narayana Guru and author/scholar Sukumar Azhikode (the latter considers him as his guru and often talks/writes about him). Perhaps I should have looked around a bit more before commenting. I have access to a couple of encyclopaedias in Malayalam. If they don't have an entry for him, I'll have to withdraw the keep. Tintin 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep References in the article but, unsure of how the verification process works for non-internet based sources. I don't see an outright statement of importance or significance though and I'm not sure whether any of the external links really apply so... Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He was notable in Kerala for fighting for civil rights and more. References include:
  • Peasantry and the Anti-Imperialist Struggles in Kerala
Author(s): K. K. N. Kurup
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 16, No. 9 (Sep., 1988), pp. 35-45
Publisher: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517171
  • CONTRIBUTION OF BRAHMAN AN DASVAMI SIVAYOGI AND VAGBHATANANDA TO THE RENAISSANCE OF KERALA
B Sivayogi - Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature, 2004 - Publication Division, ::University of Calicut
  • Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature
By En. Vi. Pi Uṇittiri, University of Calicut
Published by Publication Division, University of Calicut, 2004
ISBN 9788177480665
  • Peasantry, Nationalism, and Social Change in India
By K. K. N. Kurup
Published by Chugh Publications, 1991
p. 126
There are many more where these came from.
Ism and tintin - please note that people who are notable for various social and religious movements are often not famous. Famous is not a requirement for notability on Wikipedia, though it may be important for People magazine, etc. ~ priyanath talk 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find Ism's comment about fame was in regards to the "Keep for now because he is famous" statement by tintin. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see - I've just added tintin to my comment, then. Thanks. ~ priyanath talk 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Priyanath, can you expand the article a bit based on your references. I am struggling a bit because I don't have too many print sources. Tintin 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't have time right now - I was able to find those sources very quickly and easily with Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps Ism or another editor would consider improving the article. Regardless, I think this AfD is well on the way to proving notability. The article should be kept on those grounds alone, whether it's improved right now or not. ~ priyanath talk 16:25, 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 Delete --JForget 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Ramnani

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

Bio of non notable. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete bio, spam, i would have proposed speedy delete. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Ditto. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable and spammy. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything except for the criticism section is spam. Non-notable anyway. GizzaDiscuss © 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Travel Agent??? At this rate I won't be surprised if my dhobi also has a wikipedia article about himself. --09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete.

Talk 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mohammad Umer

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

Bio of non notable. News coverage of one story cited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge: the incident is notable in itself, although i don't know if the person should be the topic of the article, or the incident, or if it should be removed and merged in a more general article like Islam in India, or a (non existent) Hindi-Muslim Marriages in India. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might I also add that this article was created by a well known POV pusher. So I really wouldnt attach any credence to this article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The story merited coverage in India. Personal statements removedBut back on the actual topic at hand, it merits mention on Wikipedia in some fashion due to its widespread coverage, though I also believe now that a page is unnecessary and that wikinews/the like is a more proper form of description.Pectoretalk 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I will reply to your personal comments on your talk page. W.r.t the news coverage , every second day there is some news report in the paper about some inter-caste love story with opposing parents & community members, court cases, police protection etc etc. Should they all feature in Wikipedia as notable just because newspapers cover them? What is so special about this love story? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have removed personal comments, I dont think it was right for me to escalate this into a mud-digging page. The point is that unless you find a case with similar notability, we dont have a reason to believe it does not merit coverage. It went to the Bombay High court, it merits over 300 google news hits. Just remember that wikipedia has notability guidelines for a reason. If papers cover it, there is obviously some importance to it. The marriage itself isnt a big deal I agree, but the rammifications of divisions within the sindhi panchayat, the apparent hypocrisy of the RSS/Bajrang Dal/etc, and the legal events make it notable.


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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant

WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Tartarian Nights

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

I do not see any reason of notability (nor any is claimed, apart an unsourced "amount of controversy due to its graphic nature (in spite of amounting practically null body count) and a certain number of subjects both parodied and criticized in its plot (religion, institutions)"). Of the links provided, one is a one-minute YouTube video, and the other does not mention the book. A Google search for "Benjamín Harguindey" mostly shows WP mirrors and a blog of somebody who liked the book. Goochelaar (talk) 14:44, 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 to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing

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

This subject does not seem to show a significant level of notability. The references used in the article only mention the organisation in passing, usually mentioning it merely as the publisher of Book X. In a previous nomination, this article was kept as it was believed that the subject had a "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics...". However, as was also pointed out in the previous nomination, the subject in question was merely incidental in the instances where there was a demonstrable effect. –

Jay 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was keep --Leivick (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Chunk

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

This article describes a flash-in-the-pan news story that got picked up by a number of different papers and TV shows in a slow news week. The article fails

WP:NOT#NEWS and has no potential for expansion that I can see.
Note: This page was previously speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion was overturned in a Deletion Review on 1 Aug on procedural grounds. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Forgive me for choosing not to read between the lines, but there is absolutely nothing in BLP1E that invokes the necessity for sensitivity and caution. Yes, the overall BLP guidelines are very aware of this fact, but the "one event" subsection is a question of notability alone. Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the section in context with its parent section "Presumption in favor of privacy" and in context of its neighboring sections "Privacy of personal information" and "Basic human dignity" the general policy idea should be obvious. But as you said, if you don't want to read between the lines, you don't have to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the coverage hasn't been pages of information, it hasn't exactly been stub-like either. This and this for example are decent sized articles. ~ AmeIiorate
T C @ 03:49, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICONS

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

Unremarkable web cartoon. Probable COI (cartoon made by "Braintree Studios", article created by User:Braintreestudios). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 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 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

elc International school

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

Notibility issues have been raised. Avi (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, a couple days ago you contested against
elc International school is not a notable school. Officials from the school has contacted me about the article and that they would like it removed, otherwise as a student I might be well..sought after. Could you please remove it ASAP? Thanks, --Hanaichi 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply
]
talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - I am not sure of the concern. It is not unusual for schools' administration to object to Wikipedia articles. However, this is normally when there is something particularly negative in the page. In this case the only section that looked in any way negative was the discipline paragraph and I have thinned it out to make it read more neutrally. Anyway, good luck in your discussions.
    talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Naturally, it would help to keep it on your watch list. We don't semi-protect articles out of the blue nor do we delete either at the request of the subject organisation nor because of the threat of vandalism. If the article requires protection it will get it but we are not there yet. If it gets vandalised we deal with that and/or the vandal as we do with many other school pages.
    talk) 19:36, 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.

Talk 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Programming Without Coding Technology

Programming Without Coding Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete promotional article about a programming development system. This is clearly an advert, including phrases such as "It's Very fun like a game", and an internet search yields just a few hits, which is indicative of lack of notability in this particular field. Mindmatrix 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWith respect to the first point 1 - It's really fun like a game, in scientific point of view because games are based on interaction, and programming without coding too, are based on interaction Programming without coding classified under multi-topics including Programming Languages, AI, Compiler & Games

With respect to the second point 1 - In the real world, there is lack of resource related to programming without coding, and this project (Programming Without Coding Technology) presented to reduce the gap in this field and present programming without coding to the real world as full replacement for coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on lack of verifiability from multiple reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. It does in fact read like an advert and use "Weasel words". Although
    verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment

I have already edited the article, removing words like "IT's very fun"
The source of this article is an open source project hosted on sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop)
I removed my name from the article
I think now, there is no problems
Could you review the article again, and remove the speedy for deletion mark ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the policies. The article isn't marked for speedy deletion. The sources aren't reliable 3rd party sources (per the verifiability policy). And your name appearing in the article or not doesn't change the fact that you have an apparent conflict of interest that may be colouring your judgement in a way not beneficial to the project or to the article in question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i will change the resources to be just one resource (the project website on sourceforge) Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. Please read the policies I've pointed out. Removing sources isn't going to help you need to provide more (specifically ones that conform to the verifiability policy).Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a vanity piece with no second or third party sources to assert any kind of notability which the third paragraph all but admits. --neon white talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have already updated the article 1) adding (Hello world example without coding - using Screen Shots of PWCT) 2) i removed the third paragraph 3) Is this help ?, or there are problems ?

Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems. Please, please, please have a look at the relevant policies (I placed a nice note on your talkpage and everything). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, could someone modify the article to avoid these problems ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could except you are the only person that appears to know about the subject so you should probably review the policies and correct the problems that have been already pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problems are with the lack of sources existing to assert notability, if these cannot be found then there is little that can be done with the article. Wikipedia has criteria for what subjects may be included specified
here. --neon white talk 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the project is about programming via a visual GUI that doesnt involve a user having to write code, however the nature of the subject is not relevent to it's notability. It's a largely unknown (15 ghits only) open source project. --neon white talk 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i have updated the article, i hope that now everything is fine ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that there aren't any secondary sources describing the Programming Without Coding Technology. Without them, the article is deemed original research and is against Wikipedia guidelines, so it must be deleted. I suggest that you keep all the work you've done in this article and publish it as documentation in the sourceforge page of your project.[20] Diego (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the original research the article source is (Programming Without Coding Technology Help - 220 Pages) and every one can get these documents after downloading the software from sourceforge Is this everything, or i still need to do somthing ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and hopefully for the final time. Please read these policies
Conflict of Interest. Make sure the article complies and you won't have to do anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Now guys, is there a need to be so rude? You could help by telling him what the rule means in short, instead of making him read piles of legalese to find it out. Diego (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mahmoud: your project must be famous before it gets a Wikipedia page. That's why it's getting deleted. You should talk about it in Freshmeat and other technical sites to get people know it, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Diego (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

At first with respect to project name there is no contradiction because programming is not coding, programming is a goal, and coding is a method to achieve that goal you can look at http://expresscode.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/coding-vs-programming/

With respect to freshmate, my project works only on MS-Windows and freshmate doesn't accept projects that works only on MS-Windows

With respect to other resources refer to the project it's well known in the xharbour community

1 - http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=product/thirdparty you will find a link to the project under the name (Mahmoud DoubleS (Super Server) Framework)

2 - http://www.xharbour.com/xhc/index.asp?page=xhc_download.asp&show_h=8&show_i=8&show_sub=2 you will find an abstract for the project for download

3 - http://www.the-holms.org/xharbour/addon.htm you will find a link to the project under the name (doublesvsoop)


Also on sourceforge [ 06/08/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy) ] my project rank is 134 of (more than 130,000 projects) with active percentage = 99.94%

i hope that this is what is required ?

Greetings, Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out countless times, the project has not been covered in second party reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your work. --neon white talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same article, published on www.codeproject.com at this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/programmingwithoucoding.aspx is codeproject considered as second party reliable sources ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you wrote the article, and you aren't independent of the subject of the article. Any reliable sources used to indicate notability must be independent of the project. Silverfish (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant advertising and a non-starter of an idea anyway. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:20, 13 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

WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Holy Fit

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

Fails to satisfy basic notability and verifiability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. It's mentioned here and in more detail here but I'm unsure of the reliability of those sources and I don't think the coverage is adequate for a full article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:V. No prejudice against creating (preferably with more and better content) when the film does become both notable and verifiable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete if it doesn't have even a little tiny forum comment on imdb, it wasn't seen by anybody apart from the director and his mother. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, establishes no notability - in fact, provides no information beyond cast list. JIP | Talk 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Limited ghits for "Holy Fit" in conjunction with either the director's name or the lead actor's name. Best source I could find was this; apparently the screenplay won some sort of contest which allowed the film to be made. But that's pretty much it, and it's not enough to satisfy our notability criteria. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a comedy short (25 minutes long) that does not appear to have won any awards or otherwise have any coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per insufficient notability. I found two articles on Access World News that mention the film and the director in passing, but no significant coverage that can establish notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 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 no consensus to delete. Now, there is a consensus that there likely shouldn't be an article at this title, but there's no consensus on exactly what to do with it. I am going to leave it to editors more knowledgeable about the subject to discuss and make any editorial moves, redirects, merges, and disambiguations. lifebaka++ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter music

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

Delete. Redundant article, there are already pages for each individual soundtrack. The article voilates

WP:V). Merge any worthy and sourced infomation into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack). Dalejenkins | 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • soft redirect/disambig- unless someone can come up with a really really good reason for an article for the music in the whole series, a simple disambig page should be enough (it does seem like a plausible search term, after all). Umbralcorax (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - But this does not preclude us from recreating the article in a suitable fashion at some point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep due to clear and overwhelming consensus in previous AfD and because
    Tally-ho! 16:57, 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 DELETE. This article adds no value whatsoever. I would call it "original research" but the research is hardly original - there must have been many people who have figured this out already. It isn't particularly difficult in coming up with the formula - it's actually calculating its numeric value that is. You can put "the power of 10 to 5 trillion" in the numerator using your average home computer, but it would take the

IBM Roadrunner to actually calculate the formula's value. And, most importantly, calculating the exact value of pi is impossible. Sorry for the rant. Just deleting it as a test page, OK? JIP | Talk 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Pi exact value

Pi exact value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An

original method of correctly calculating pi to "zillions" of places. Yeah, okay. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:11, 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. Wizardman 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Options

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

)

  • Non Notable, Original Research, Promotional, also just created on :nl — Zanaq (?) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storng Delete per nom, possible A7 --Numyht (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it falls foul of
    A7 (An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant) -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Article should be cleaned up, but company is absolutely notable. And no original research. I'm an expert in the field, they are my competitor. JacobH (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question so as an expert in the field and a competitor you are able to supply the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources to verify this notability? Or rewrite the article from a Neutral Point of View (or at least more balanced)? If so please do and I'll gladly review my comments above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did it on the Dutch version, with reliable sources. Will do. JacobH (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - current version is virtually an attack piece. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 13 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 delete

CSD G3 - obvious hoax, no track of subject's existence in real life --Angelo (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Terry Heartsfield

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

Contested PROD. Notability not established. Possibility of becoming notable in the future, but not yet. roleplayer 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Well, if the book the article speaks of, is really due to be published, that should establish notability and he does play for a renowned club. I think when in doubt about whether to delete it or not, keeping it will not do any harm... So#Why review me! 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons below, I forgot to think about looking up arsenal.com. So#Why review me! 13:27, 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) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Software Companies in Sri Lanka

List of Software Companies in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is, in its current form, nothing more then a promotional article for the software companies added to it (With no good article to revert to). I added a warning that lists should only contain links to Wikipedia articles, but its still only featuring external links along with full contact information Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:20, 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 - though there is disagreement on what Greater Europe means; perhaps this debate is what the article should be about if the reliable sources talk about the subject but cannot agree on what it is. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Europe

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

Quite simply this entity or concept does not exist. All alleged references are not reputable sources. I severely doubt the term is used in any reputable notable publications. Nothing in this article could not be said in the Europe article. It is original research. Willy turner (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article when nominated was in shambles. I have since removed the unreliable sources, added reliable ones, and tidied up the page. It is a term I have encountered many times before. Hopefully the page can be saved. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept does not exist in any authoritative sense. Siberia and the Islamic states formerly part of the USSR have never been thought to be European, Greenland is on the North American tectonic plate, and Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. --
    "talk" 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or Merge As the IP points out, this term is used, as the sources show. So there is something like that contrary to what the nominator states. If the NY Times, Coca-Cola Inc. or others use it, it does have a meaning and if it does, it can have an article. I think the nominated article and the current article are not the same and the current article is sourced okay and might only require a cleanup. Alternatively it could be merged into the Europe article as a new section and the nominated article made a redirect to point there. So#Why review me! 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Europe - this does not seem a credible or generelised concept, but a mere jornalistic or comercial expression used to denote some dubious reality. The Ogre (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Besides the article's destiny, there is also the question of the map: if it is a geographical depiction of the location of Europe in the world (as some user in Template:Regions of the world tried to do), then it is completely wrong; if it is an illustration of Greater Europe, whatever that might be and assuming a map for that should exist, then at least it should be renamed. The Ogre (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked the old and the new sources and found them less than convincing. Judging from them, I doubt that of three people speaking of a Greater Europe, any two agree on what they mean. Several sources use "greater Europe", not the proper noun "Greater Europe". In effect, a
    neologism which has not gained mainstream recognition or a unified meaning. We could summarize the article as "Greater Europe is a geographical or political entity greater than Europe or the current EU", but it's not a notable term. Huon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment May I point out that the article is vastly different from how it was when it was nominated, so that is not a good enough reason. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I still stand behind Delete. I find the concept unsupportable and counter-factual. We are moving into Humpty Dumpty land, by taking a concept ("Europe") and stretching it to mean [most of] "Eurasia" as well as the "Mediterranean Basin." I have looked at the current version of the article and see no value in it. And to me, Coca-Cola is not an authority. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to UEFA, which covers all of "Greater Europe" Merge into Europe per the Ogre. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a new section in Europe Keep, considering the new changes to the page. --Maltalia (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are hundreds of books which talk of this and some, such as Towards Greater Europe are specifically about the topic. The nomination's contention that the term is not used in reputable publications is evidently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but seriously improve with more and credible sources. I really hate the map, IMHO it should be deleted and a better one should be found (along with proper sources). The map includes Jordan and several Asian countries who might be influenced by the wider Western world, but being a part of a 'Greater Europe' seems to be quite a stretch. I believe that the article is a bit suspicious but recent improvements seem to indicate that the term exists in some quarters. The argument of Colonel Warden is very unclear. Perhaps there are two terms/ideas with this name (Greater Europe): one shown in this article (kind of a fringe idea), and the other one concerning the EU (i.e.:a Greater Europe created by the EU - EU being the proper name for the article). Either way the term seems to exist - the article just needs more work and improvements. Flamarande (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a widely debated topic - and useful to a researcher. May want to consider more edits.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - No Consensus - Default to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest (TV series)

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

Unreferenced article that does not assert its notability. It is also unclear whether all the listed programmes actually belong to a series per se. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:56, 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) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doodlemail (Program)

Doodlemail (Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non-notable software. No 3rd party sources attest to notability Mayalld (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In its defence it's listed to distinguish it from the other Doodlemail, it's software from AT&T so presumably they're known to you (Wiki also has links to ZX Spectrum games and how 'notable' are they?), and it's independently mentioned in patents: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7003308/description.html. I find this incessant demand from anonymous sources to delete anything and everything they personally don't find notable to be baffling. It's not Windows Vista sure, but its worth keeping in. The creator's details are on his research page at AT&T:

HOWARD P KATSEFF

email: [email protected]

180 PARK AVE - BUILDING 103

FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932

Doodlemail (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, no 3rd party sources to establish notability. Movingboxes (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising and copyright violation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete i tagged the article as a speedy before, but it seems the author removed the CSD template. Restored the CSD containing version Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The author did remove the Speedy Delete tag, but only after rewriting the information so that it was not a copywrite violation anymore. So even if the author had not removed it, the article would have failed to meet the speedy delete criteria, so it was appropriate for someone to remove the tag. I restored the non-copywrite version along with the removed AfD tag. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article at present is basically spam (though possibly unintentional). Verifiability requires non-trivial coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. No prejudice again creation of a suitably encyclopedic article in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. By the way, all the Speccy games that have articles have been the subject of reviews in national publications, which estabilishes their notability. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Note: copyright issues have been addressed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The only sources available for the program are primary ones from AT&T, patent information on the program or ones where you can download the program. Couldn't find any links to reviews of the program or any third party information on the program. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note —
    MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran Kirakosian

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

This article is proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

1- Article has remained without any sources, verifiable or otherwise, since at least November of 2007.

2- Article reads as a fan page, with phrases such as "(the subject) is known to do a little bit of everything", "internationally recognized", "career has recently taken him to another level". These such phrases are typical in fan pages: internationally recognized in what nations? By whom? "A little of everything" is very ambiguous.

3- Multiple grammatical mistakes and incomplete sentences. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) IP nomination copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I proposed this deletion, but I'm unclear about the process here. It looks like a user named Hakob has changed the template to read that this was being contested, but he's made no comment here. Can you please advise? Thanks.207.237.198.131 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That objection was to the original "PROD", which can be removed by anyone for any reason. This AfD is a more formal process that cannot be derailed (well, it can, but not as easily). If you can't see the version of the article with the notice for this AfD on it, you should either do a hard refresh of the page, or sign up for a free account (no personal information required) - either should force the latest version to appear. ➜ REDVƎЯS has nothing to declare except his jeans 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks to the account. But yes, I see it on the page. Just wanted to make sure this was going correctly. Thx for the advice :o) 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two Google News hits are not enough. One is from when he was 10. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:25, 14 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) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasslevania

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

Non-notable free game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are provided to assert notability. For example, the comment that "Overall, reviews for the game were generally positive." - if there are reviews, can they not be cited? -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources I come up with are totally unreliable or trivial mentions. There's a 'guest review' posted on TIGSource (IE reader review) and a trivial mention on PCWorld (which is reviewing another game by the same developer). I had a look for sources for this one awhile ago and came up with none then. Someoneanother 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fan-made game. JIP | Talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game related deletions. Someoneanother 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per JIP. Interestingly, the main site for this game seems to have gone offline some time ago. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No homepage, as User said the comment is "...reviews for the game were generally positive..." without reference to those reviews, and nothing about the game seems groundbreaking. This entry seems to be an ad for a product, not an informational page.D3l8 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Around! The homepage is there, I don't know what you mean. You can find it here- [30] You can get sources for reviews right on the site's review page, which is here- [31]. "Nothing about the game seems groundbreaking" Um, since when is that considered criteria for a Wiki page? Why don't you go and nominate a thousand other Wiki game pages for deletion then if that's your gold standard. Nobody had any issues with Hasslevania being put on Wikipedia months ago until now. I'll go and try to save his article by putting the "new" links on it. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I know the creator of this game and something stinks around here... TheHenge (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a home page exists does not establish notability. Otherwise I would be a notable enough person to have my own article since I do have my own site. As far as the reviews are concerned:
    • PC World: the person says nothing else but to go check the game, which also happens to be on that same page. Nothing else.
    • The Daily Click: None of these reviews pass
      WP:V
      ; all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established.
    • TIGsource: Can you show that reviews coming from this site are reliable besides simply saying that it is?
    • Indygamer, Slimaczek, Victory Gamer: See The Daily Click.
    • E-Mails: Are you kidding?
  • Please try to read
    MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 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 speedy delete

T» 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Doodlemail (disambiguation)

Doodlemail (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Dab page that consists only of redlinks (and where the redlinks are unlikely to result in an article) Mayalld (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first article has been created and it does not assert notability. I tagged it for speedy deletion and from the latest text written on this page, it does not appear the sectond article will be about a notable software program. Jons63 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how 'speedily' deletion occurs so I am having to waste my time asking for these articles not be deleted before I have a chance to create them. You may be jaded wikipedia editors sick and tired of people creating pointless articles on their friend's aunt's pets, but Doodlemail the AT&T program is used by many people, as is the Doodlemail.co.uk email service. They are valid articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlemail (talk • contribs) 09:09, 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 as he fails

WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Raffaele Ioime

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

Backup goalkeeper (fourth-choice) for

WP:PROD. He played solely with amateur teams, and never made a single appearance in a fully professional league [32]. The PROD was removed by User:Juve10 under the claim he actually played twice with Catania, but this is a false claim, as you can realize yourself with a short look at the sources. Angelo (talk) 08:07, 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.  Sandstein  07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (population)

Orders of magnitude (population) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incoherent list Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-
    indiscriminate list of numbers. This list has no clear purpose and no clear criterion for inclusion. Reyk YO! 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It seems I merged some articles such as 1 E1 people and 1 E2 people together to make this following some inconclusive AFDs here, but as it was nearly three years ago I can't really remember much more :) Tim! (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no purpose to article, certainly not encyclopedic. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:19, 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--

the Orphanage 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse

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

Following deletion at the last AfD, the article was recreated with the justification that it is about the trailer for the film, rather than the film itself, and thus is exempt from

future film notability guidelines. I have several problems with this. One, this appears essentially to be an attempt to side-step process by following the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of them. Two, the vast majority of the article discusses the upcoming (as of yet unshot and thus failing NFF) feature film which this trailer was created for, and not the trailer itself. Three, this creates a somewhat tenuous precedent whereby all trailers, shorts, etc which are created for the purpose of attracting investors to a feature film may be considered notable. Indeed, if this is the example to follow, then all that is needed for any film big or small to warrant inclusion here is a trailer, even if no shooting has begun. However, some of the article's information is notable enough to merit merging to the bios for Baruchel and Rogen. I'd like to recommend that the rest of it be userfied and deleted from articlespace, for reasons above. I understand the frustration here, but a sober consideration of the larger picture aside from this particular entry is needed, instead of recreating deleted material under a slight shift in supposed focus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve T • C 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. Before I decide which way to fall on this one, I will say that I don't think this should be treated purely as a film article in this debate.
    general notability guideline, and it's this it should probably be judged against, as an article about any other popular Youtube video might be. With that in mind, can anyone cite precedent one way or the other here? Do we have any articles on other Youtube clips that have had a large number of hits and have subsequently received some minor press coverage? Steve T • C 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete It fails
    WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep. With respect Giro, this isn't an attempt to recreate deleted material; this was all thrashed out at the previous AfD, where some of us felt that the faux trailer had enough notability in itself to warrant an article. That said, the lion's share of internet coverage seems to be in relation to news of a feature film adaptation. With regards to precedents, the nearest example I can think of is Grayson (film). PC78 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to delete, per analysis of sources by Steve. Media coverage is really about the proposed film, and only mentions the trailer in passing. I had a look for earlier sources about the trailer itself, but a handfull of blogs aside, they just aren't there. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have great respect for your opinion, and your delete vote just shows I need to continue working on the article. You may find THIS better as I incorporate Steve's concerns and change the focus from the film or trailer to the unique aspects of the trailer's cause and effect, as this gives that trailer a notability beyond it simply being a film short. Opinion? Schmidt (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't think trying to get around policies and stuff is very good but, that is a behaviour thing. On the article itself I think despite the copious amount of mentions in news sources the majority of the coverage is about the actors, from blogs, or fail to provide significant coverage in a non-trivial manner. Although, I'm not 100% on what is/isn't a fully reliable source in the movie business for our purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. To be fair, this incarnation of the article did originally have the word "trailer" in its title, but was moved to this title on 4 August 2008 by PC78 (diff). -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    Infobox Film}} related to the plans. The structure is intended for the trailer, so the trailer is clearly identified as the primary topic here. The trailer, not just having coverage, is a tangible topic, as opposed to mere planning for a film that may never be made. I think that is the real difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agreed. This article is about the trailer and not a future film. It shoud be judged as that... and not because it shares a name with a failed article. My suggestion for name change was only to remove confusion. Again, and with respects to the nom, the only precedent being set is that any and all articles should be worthy of Wiki. If I used
    Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and predicted hundreds of such articles (just as there are hundreds about feature films or film shorts) I would expect each and every article to individually meet the same standards applied to all of Wiki. Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Still mulling this one over. On the one hand, it has received some coverage. But, as
    WP:N says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'm not sure that this has passed the threshold required. It's also worth noting that of those references and external links that aren't from sources of borderline reliability (not in a real world sense, but a Wikiworld one), they're pretty much just reporting the intention to make the feature film, with a brief note that it was "based upon an internet trailer that went viral last year." Steve T • C 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • An ill choice of wording; I should have paraphrased the intention, rather than quoting outright. As I say, I'm still mulling this, and indeed I am checking out the sources (though more specifically, what they say). Steve T • C 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've examined the sources used in this version of the article (permalink for reference, should the article be improved in the interim):
  1. A link to the trailer itself. This is a primary source, and cannot be used as a demonstration of notability. Posted June 2007.
  2. Slashfilm.com story announcing the forthcoming feature film. This contains a brief mention of the trailer as the inspiration for the film, though the film is the primary focus of the article ("The idea for the film began as an internet trailer that went viral last Summer"). Posted June 11th, 2008.
  3. Newteevee.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Contains a larger description of the trailer, but is a self-admitted "work in progress" site that has not demonstrated any credentials towards being a
    reliable source
    . Posted June 16, 2008.
  4. Variety.com announcement on the planned feature film. A bona fide reliable source. But again, the story is about the film, not the trailer. The trailer is mentioned once in the article ("Film is based on a comedy short from "Superbad" scribes Rogen and Evan Goldberg"). Posted June 10, 2008.
  5. Cinematical.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Reliability not determined, but I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Still, this is another story that has only been decided is prominent enough to run one year after the trailer appeared, and is little more than an announcement of the film. Posted Jun 11th 2008.
  6. JoBlo.com story on the announcement of the planned film. This site is of indeterminate reliability and barely mentions the trailer. Credits the Variety article as its source. Posted June 10, 2008.
  7. Same cite as #2
  8. SFFWorld.com announcement of the feature film. It does mention that the trailer was a "huge hit" online, but is mostly about the film. Posted June 18, 2008.
  9. IMDb page. Not a demonstration of notability, and not about the trailer, but the film.
  10. About.com story concerning the announcement of the planned film. It contains a very brief mention of trailer ("The feature film is inspired by a trailer Stone shot for the internet"). Posted June 11, 2008.
  11. Geeks of Doom story that follows the same format as the rest. As a blog, it is also not a reliable enough source to bestow notability. Posted June 12th, 2008.
  12. Moviefone.com IMDb-style cast and crew information page for the film. It literally contains not one word about the trailer (undated).
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 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Salt Lick

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

The article has several issues, including

WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ADVERT. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ORG states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". One article in the New York Times does not constitute notability. Two or three branches are not an indication of notability neither. Furthermore, all the editors -except the user who wrote the article- who expressed their opinions on the article's talkpage
seem to disagree with you.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google lists quite a few sources that show it is a regional culinary point of attraction. The article should be worked on, though. It just is not "world famous". -- Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those results -other than the NY times article- are, and am quoting Euryalus from the article's talk page are: "paid advertising, blogs or trivial mentions in travel pages." And I agree with that.
Would someone be kind enough and tell me how this restaurant is different from others? It might be a great one but I don't think that would cut it. That's the issue here;
notability
.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any restaurant in business for about 40 years will get its name published here or there, and as much notability a published reader's message, serving Samsung executives or even a Tribune Business News's article can give to a restaurant, I am yet to be convinced. All I am asking for is a simple statement telling what makes it stand out. There are according to one of those results "thousands of places to get barbecue in Central Texas", so again what makes this one worthy of inclusion. I don't even need a source, just explain to me in simple terms how is it notable and I will withdraw the request for deletion.
Finally, a Google search will yield more results for other subjects that don't have their own articles.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do me a big favour and tell me what makes you think this restaurant is notable? How is it different than others?
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 06:11, 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 keep. lifebaka++ 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soopa Villainz

Music group which fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches were found in the Google News Archive (all dates searched). [36] JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Esham. This is not notable on its own. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Esham was with this group only briefly, I don't think a merge is appropriate in this particular case. JBsupreme (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It passes the WP:MUSIC because it holds true numbers 2, 5, and 6 in "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". I can reference the article from their website using archive.org, as well as reference their four chart positions from allmusic.com and eonline.com. I can also try and search for other sites so it can hold true number 1 too. But I would much rather not if this article would ultimately be deleted anyway and all my work be in vain.Juggalobrink (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The requirement for articles is non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If you are able to locate such coverage, please let everyone know. JBsupreme (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've only found a few sites Allmusic and eOnline, which both only state chart positions so I'm guessing they're considered trival coverage. I've also found an extremely short review of Furious from CD Universe which could possibly be used, but I'm not sure it's reliable. I haven't really searched though.Juggalobrink (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Group is made up of three notable artists:
    talk) 13:36, 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 no consensus to delete. Sources provided by keep arguments, some of which are already on the article, are very strong. Spam concerns in this case are not enough to require deletion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The_Equity_Project

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

not a notable educational institution. Does not belong in the Wikipedia —

few or no other edits
outside this topic.

  • Delete because it is a future thing and not really notable anyway. Someone also seems to have nominated it for CSD G11; I think I more or less agree. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- prolly not CSD11 material, there is one substantial source but I'd be looking for more on a
    future project. No prejudice on recreation though, and I'd be happy to be talked into changing my position if more material surfaces. Reyk YO! 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I've declined the G11 speedy. --jonny-mt 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
NYT substantial article (2 pages): [37].
Madville Times/Keloland TV (South Dakota news organization) substantial article (1 page): [38]
Huffington Post (brief mention): [39]
education.com magazine substantial article (4 pages): [40] AfD hero (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I did pull some stuff from their site, those were mostly specific details. A lot of other stuff came from the official charter submission that was reviewed, and from the NY Times article. Also, in regards to it being a "future thing" - this is not "unverifiable speculation" or original research, and the event is almost certain to take place. Thus, it at least cannot be considered a Crystal Ball article. And more info can be added from those sources above to make it better... I stated on the talk page that I knew it could use improvement. JDbruin (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    talk) 05:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment.* True, but the notability of schools in itself has been a hotly debated topic on wikipedia with many school pages being deleted. Those that have been kept have had to work hard at establishing notability. In this case, this school has yet to even open which really makes it a non-notable institution.
    talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - the charter school project has received substantive coverage. In addition to the ones mentioned above, the Houston Chronicle has written about it (based on the original NYT article), as well as a followup article in The New York Times on March 14. However, there have been a number of other "Equity Projects" that are unrelated to this one (see: [41], [42]) so it may need to have a
    HidariMigi (talk) 00:03, 13 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) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of marine parks with Orcas

AfDs for this article:
List of marine parks with Orcas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per

WP:NOT#DIR. List is not notable and information should be incorporated into the respective park pages. Momo Hemo (talk) 04:47, 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 Redirected per TerriersFan, content has been merged already. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weidman School of Economics

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

Seems to be non-notable. Only source doesn't even mention a "Weidman school of economics". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:50, 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 Redirect to

the Orphanage 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Second Founding

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot points from the various Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 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 per

WP:N.  Sandstein  07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sonic shower

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion, which closed as an unambiguous keep. Concept is used in a variety of ways as seen here, which suggests both notability and verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
    Tally-ho! 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That was a year ago, and no notability has been demonstrated, so what you must mean is Speedy delete. Also, the last decision was decided upon with zero proof of notability, so it should have been delete then too.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean speedy keep, because the existence in multiple sources demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You must be confusing this with another article, as none have been demonstrated of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the arguments made in the previous discussion and the results of the Google Book search are sufficient to convince me it is worthy of being covered in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If you are going to post something, make it have some baring on what we are discussing, which is notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JS, please keep to the discussion of the article, and do not attack others for what they post. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others have already asserted notability above. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
People posting text that is basically nonsense to filibuster the AFD, create confusion, and distract from the nominating concerns is not an "attack", it is what is taking place here. No notability has been established of any kind, and it is obstructive and rude to make long posts that add nothing to this discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If notability was not established, multiple editors would not be arguing to keep across two AfDs. These editors are not lying per "assume good faith." --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There exists the possibility that they are wrong in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Your opinion carries only the weight of the arguments you make to support it. Empty assertions of notability and vague gestures to articles using the two words in proximity don't carry much weight, no matter how much good faith you have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, I am not alone in my opinion and others are correctly convinced that the topic is sufficiently legitimate that there's no pressing need to redlink this search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Tally-ho! 03:43, 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 Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randwick-Botany Greens

Randwick-Botany Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In the same way that Wikipedia draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the Greens party structure in NSW is such that party members are members of the local group and the state group is basically an alliance of these. That means that the local groups have far greater importance than in other parties and in fact form the constituent parts of the party rather than being merely branches. Local groups generally have their own constitutions and are self-determining in regards to policy. I believe this is also the case in Victoria. It may not be the case in other states and territories. I do agree however that the more recent edits to the page (not by me) lack appropriate encyclopaedic quality and require editing. Sambauers (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that the template blows out when including these, and it need not include the local groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite where a local (non-fed/state) group has achieved wikipedic noteability? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it asserts notability. Simply being a political party doesn't seem to confer notability. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I note this guideline which states in part:
    • Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources.
    • Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
Particular notability has not been established. Since there are over 50 such local groups in NSW this could be the start of an avalanche. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Branches of political parties are almost never going to be notable in isolation from the party they're part of. The claim of a 'controversy' seems spurious given that it appears to have been a spat between the members of the council.
    talk) 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Non-notable. Orderinchaos 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...

Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.

Another example, councillors in New York City -

Membership of the New York City Council

Many lists of mayors exist on Wikipedia, many of whom have pages, e.g.

List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona

Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.

This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Wikipedia. And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Wikipedia for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change my view, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the extensive research undertaken by Sambauers, none of the above examples relate directly to the situation of the article in question. Randwick-Botany Greens refers to a local (that is, sub-capital) branch of a state or national organisation. There is still no reason to report the workings of a grassroots, non-notable group. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above examples are not analogous and are in no way precedents. The three British examples listed are all political parties in their own right: IKHHC has an MP in Westminster. Randwick-Botany Greens is not a stand alone party, merely a party sub-branch. Bush shep (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Past precedents don't matter for this article anyway, as the author has failed to provide any reliable references that mention the "Randwick-Botany Greens" as a single entity. Reliable references must be provided first, before we can even consider step #2 about past precedents.-Lester 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a non notable local branch unless evidence otherwise is provided. Nuttah (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UK examples are acceptable analogies because the Randwick-Botany Greens (as is the case with many of the Greens NSW groups) is a political organisation in it's own right. If the NSW Greens was disolved tomorrow, many of it's affiliated groups (not "branches") would still exist as individual political parties, many with their own rules, bylaws and constitutions, like the Randwick-Botany Greens.
It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding prevalent in the comments here as to the organisational structure of the Greens in Australia. It is organised from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Any mention in the mainstream media of contests in the Federal seat of Kingsford-Smith or the state electorates of Coogee or Maroubra that mention the Greens is reporting on the direct activities of the Randwick-Botany Greens. They select their own candidates, they organise their own preferences, they co-ordinate their own campaigns. Federal Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was a member of the Randwick-Botany Greens when she was elected to the senate and of course by association she was a part of the NSW Greens and the Australian Greens. The group also succeeded in producing metropolitan Sydney's first Green Mayor. I feel these activities and links are notable enough. The reason you will not find the name "Randwick-Botany Greens" specifically used in sources is because it is consistently short-handed to "The Greens" in the major press.
One should acknowledge that the organisational structure of the Greens NSW is clearly laid out in the NSW Greens article here on Wikipedia and the publicly available NSW Greens constitution (See section 2.3 and 2.4 specifically), and to discredit a local group goes against these premises and the principles of the organisation you are attempting to describe here on Wikipedia. To discard the local groups as "branches" is counter to the origin and structure of the NSW Greens and creates a false and possibly even biased POV of the NSW Greens. Sambauers (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that the argument for deletion has been reduced to the notability guideline. Non-notability is not grounds for deletion per-se
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, at worst the article needs to be marked with Template:Notability. Sources help create notability but this is an ambiguous situation. I am being asked to prove the existence of an organisation before I can apply precedents. This is nonsense. Detractors here have linked to pages listing the organisation as a member group of the Greens NSW in support of their arguments (calling it a "branch"), coupled with the statements in the NSW Greens constitution, that evidence supports the group's existence as an autonomous body. I am working on adding further notable evidence to the article keeping in mind the draft guidelines for political party notability (Wikipedia:Notability_(political_parties)) which seems less strict than the burden of evidence being applied in this discussion. Sambauers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry Sam but the consensus here is clearly for deletion. Local branches are deemed to be non-noteable, the page will soon be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is majority opinion but no
consensus if I still don't agree. Yes, I am blocking consensus. This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote, and I am supposed to be offered the opportunity to improve the article to appease the objections stated here. The main objection appears to be that it is not notable, and lack of evidence of notability in itself is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned in the draft guidelines for notability of a political party, there are many more criteria by which a political organisation can be deemed notable than just press articles. Relative success in elections is one example and the article now covers that in summary (as a detailed overview would be excessive) and cites reference material. I am willing to take direction on how I can improve the article. I can easily add sources from at least one 3rd party media outlet, but I fear that they it won't be considered good enough (namely, Southern Courier - Established 1918, readership approx. 102,000). I feel I am acting in good faith, my last edit was aimed at removing non-neutral POV. From further reading of guidelinesI am attempting to remove self-published references. I am willing to work with anyone who is able to bring this article up to notability and NPOV standards, but I am not willing to accept that it is inherently not notable. Sambauers (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Consensus is to delete. One objection, especially from the article creator, does not change that. I await the textbook deletion of this inherantly non-noteable article. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No misunderstanding. The party organisation is no different to the Conservative Party (UK). The consensus is still that branches, local affiliates, or whatever you want to call them, tend not to be notable unless good evidence can be shown. Nuttah (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Wikipedia documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted [43] Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to be a garden-variety branch of a politican party. While the Greens themselves are notable, I'm not sure that any branch or subunit of the party has enough coverage to meet
    WP:N, much less this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:03, 13 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 withdraw.

receiver, archives) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I-wireless

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

The company does sell through Kroger - a major

receiver, archives) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I've declined the G11 speedy based on the presence of a non-spam version in the history. And just as an aside on the logo, I'd actually argue that it's in the public domain per {{PD-textlogo}}. --jonny-mt 06:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Could only find two third-party references, but a fairly lengthy Forbes profile of the company confers some notability. Gr1st (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Article has improved, and Forbes profile constitutes a reliable source. The bad layout, promotional tone, and other article issues are gone.
    receiver, archives) 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Synergy 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly_Beth_Vincent

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

This page is biographical, uncited, and unnecessary. This person is not a person of relevance. Ohgreedohyes (talk) 03:33, 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 merge to Operator Please. lifebaka++ 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gardiner

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

No longer notable person, keeps adding to her own article, constant vandalism. Drinkaboutit (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her page is constantly being vandalized and i believe this to be just another act by those childish people involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.2 (talk) 05:33, 13 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Saron Gas 4 Track Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Five Songs (Seether EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Promo EP with no sources nor assertion of notability. According to

WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) Stormie (talk) 02:54, 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 as

blatant advertising. -- Longhair\talk 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

MD (company)

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

Article fails to demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in

conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:41, 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--

the Orphanage 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Demi Lovato (album)

Demi Lovato (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Usual crystal ball article. Sources provide essentially no information. Track list unsourced. No release date. No title. Kww (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. Significant change in article since I proposed AFD: now has a title, and a release date on multiple CD seller websites (Best Buy and Amazon).
Kww (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I left a note on the talk page of all editors that had expressed an opinion to make sure they were aware of the change. You can assume that any editor that argued for deletion and has not changed his statement still feels deletion is warranted.Kww (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article fails to give

WP:CBALL --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Here are some
WP:MUSIC#Albums, "speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation"; but also "however, properly and reliably referenced information about the album's recording process, such as known guest musicians, may be sufficient to justify an independent article." I'm still going to give a keep. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:05, 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 speedy keep as evidence shows he meets

WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yusuf Soysal

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

Player fails notability at

WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy keep - Soysal has played in the fully professional Turk Super Liga and is a notable footballer. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Jogurney - seems to have been the back-up keeper for 2 entire seasons for a Süper Lig - so only 2 appearances is not surprising if primary is healthy. In addition in past AfD discussions, no one has dispusted that TFF First League wasn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 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 as evidence shows he meets

WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fevzi Elmas

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

Player fails notability at

WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - Uhm..... Competed means played, which there is no evidence of him playing a game. We do care if he is a sub or not. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played at least a couple of games for Galatasaray[51][52] in 2005 per Turkish Football Federation website. (Striking out my keep vote per Jogurney clarification that these are not Super Lig games. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

According to these match details, he appears to have plays the full 90 minutes in at least eight games for Galatasaray[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. There may be more, I stopped there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but those are neither Super Lig nor Turkish Cup matches, and as far as I can tell they are reserve or youth league matches (check this for the league and cup matches: [61]). I'm quite certain he has only played 1 Super Lig match (per TFF.org) and it was a meaningless 15 mins at the end of the last match of 2004-05 season. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look more carefully, Elmas has played in 10 Turkish Cup matches. I have not looked to see if he was on a Super Lig club and whether the opponent was in the Super Lig, but if so that would help pass
WP:ATHLETE on a more substantive note. I'm still at very weak keep on this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) Ah, I see. I didn't realise that these were not Super Lig matches that I linked to (it is not clear). Is the Bank Asya 1. League fully professional? He seems to have made several appearances for Antalyaspor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect back to his club. This player has one club. Therefore, he's on the roster. Therefore, there is a roster. Therefore, there is no need for a solo article now. When he is more of a personality distinct from the clubs he's on, then his information will be sought out independently. This is basic logic. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [62] is quite clear that he's played many matches for Antalyaspor. Although they are in Süper Lig they've just been promoted from TFF First League, and are yet to play a match in Süper Lig (season begins this month). However in past AfD discussions, no one has dispusted that TFF First League wasn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note his short Süper Lig appears to be good enough anyways. He was the back-up keeper for many Süper Lig games - so only one short appearance isn't that surprising if the primary was healthy. Also note that his page references that there are pages for him on the Dutch, German, and Turkish Wikipedias. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dyer

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

the sportsman may be notable, but the people who work for him are not inherently so Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 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 as he passes

WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Marcel Schmelzer

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

Fails

WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 01:20, 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. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am sympathetic to this so I have refactored my recommendation.
    talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Under the
    GFDL we have to maintain a list of all who contributed content to an article. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 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 Merge and redirect to

the Orphanage 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Renesmee Cullen

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

Non-notable fictional character. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete book was released on the 2nd, and this character was only "born" in that book. Absolutely zero notability. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to her book: A "biography" of a character (if there's a biography, then I invite her to "bite me") with "personal details" (if they're personal, she should be mad at her author for revealing them) and the like is a bit through-the-looking-glass. I have no doubt that the sinking feeling in my stomach is right and that there will be much fan froth on this character, as well as all the others, but not yet, and not like this. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article for Twilight characters and put this in it, along with other characters such as Charlie Swan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.125.21 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don understand WHY this needs to be deleted. Everything that is here comes straight from the book. This is a valid article. Please do not delete! Lexhatesyou (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article It's a valid article with real facts from the book. There's no REAL reason to delete the article. Just keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.106.219 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete; the article has no third-party sources or concept/creation notes. Appearance does not equal notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article It's a valid article with 100% real facts. Renesmee is a(/n almost) unique being and deserves her own artcle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.81.161 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge It will probably at some point be notable enough to have its own article, but for the moment it's not, and would fit in perfect as an additive to
    Minor characters in Twilight. ~ Bella Swan? 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep this article- It is strong enough to survive on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.86.192 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It's 100% valid. She's not JUST a minor character. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.208.119 (talk) 03:22, 13 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 Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to

verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is easy, verifiability obviously harder for someone so deliberately secretive. In the absence of any suggestion that Ghost Rider isn't genuine, I'd say we're adequately covered as it is. Obviously anything better would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete only ghits found were for the videos and random blogs, little actual discussion. Videos appear to viral on the internet (though I did find some on DVD) perhaps it could be merged into viral videos. SOL Basic 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Those sorts of riding feats are pretty incredible. Then again, they're illegal. Should we create a page for everyone who does increbible, but illegal, activities? Would an article about such create the illusion that Wikipedia at least tacitly condones such activities? If a TV station were to
    pick up this guys videos or make a real movie about them, then it'd be notable, but as cool as those videos are, they haven't even really spread virally to the various viral video sites on the web. Until it does, or some other notable company picks them up and promotes them, it just isn't notable enough (plus it's illegal). Banaticus (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Neutral. We should keep this article if and only if we can find
    neutral article about him that doesn't make anyone think that opinions expressed about him by other people reflect the views of Wikipedia. I don't know whether we have such sources yet, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete although widespread as far as video content goes, without the verifiability aspect the article fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete via Jasynnash2, sounds like a ripoff off Knight Rider --Numyht (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A viral video/meme etc. that amounts to a popular but unstable subject for biography. I.e. you can't write a biography of a screen name, of a pseudonym, or a joke. You have to have some there, there. Without a studio or some other stable corporate essence standing behind this name, we don't have anything to describe. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"you can't write a biography of a pseudonym" Interesting point, but we seem to manage with The Stig. It's also likely that Ghost Rider is really one person and the Stigs are really multiple, suggesting that biostiggery would be the harder target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While mentioned above, the Stig is a secret person, he is featured on a legal and sourcefull content. You can go to Top Gear and ask about him. Ghost Rider on the other hand, is an unofficial and illegal figure, and you don't have any legal and credible sources to cite. He is a myth, and the only real "credible" evidence he exists are 5 DVD's, distributed illegaly and under the table. Fukla (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sorry, I must have read you wrong because if the only "credible" evidence of existence (much less notability) is basically unobtainable that would imply to me that he fails our verifiability policies yet, you are using that rationale to argue for Keeping the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable. We also have Captain Swing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand that ""unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable" the issue is also one of verifiability (which is the one I was trying to address for the new user). Captain Swing is simply
other stuff and doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
With regard to "distributed illegaly and under the table", the dvds are sold in Australia legally. I have worked in a shop that sells the dvds without any sort of dodgy dealing. I'm not sure if he's notable however. 58.161.194.228 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I remember Ghost Rider got atleast some [66] national media coverage when the first DVD was released. And the myth about him is quite widespread in Sweden. Cleanup is needed however. bbx (talk) 14:57, 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 Delete. Gazimoff 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Revenge (Generation X album)

Sweet Revenge (Generation X album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 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.
  1. ^ http://www.earlham.edu/~phil/undjourn.htm
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_7&oldid=1081103207"