Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 30 December 2 >

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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Martinez (football)

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

Article was placed only to attack the subject of the article. High probability of libel in this article. Surfbum (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Worthless libel attacking an individual.[reply]

  • Comment This article has been vandalized repeatedly by IP users the last day or so. A couple of named users have tried reverting to the original stub, most recently here. I don't know that an assistant coach in a I-A football program is necessarily notable so I won't say keep yet, but it shouldn't be deleted just because it's being attacked. Rklear (talk) 02:05, 2 December 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 concerns about

synthesis are well founded. I will userfy if asked, but it will require signifcant improvement to return to mainspace. I hope that it does, as we certainly could use better coverage of these topics. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Asianic religions

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

'Asianic religions' is not a commonly used term - I can find only find 3 references to it on Google books, the most recent being 1987, and those don't seem to match the use here. I get 3 hits relating to Star Wars, etc. The one source being used describes itself as an 'occult library'. Basically OR.

talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Anyway, in the early Roman Empire there was still a province called "Asia", though later the term "Anatolia" became more in vogue.0XQ (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The objection to the article seems to be based on its title. But if there is a more appropriate title it can be renamed. I don't see a good argument, however, against the substance of this new article that hasn't even been allowed to develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to give time for the article to be developed. But unless it's rewritten I don't see what there is to save. As best I can tell it doesn't discuss Asianic religions (leaving aside for the moment whether this is a good subject title). The intro gives some kind of deinition and then there are long lists of words giving various translations(?) and definitions. This article doesn't seem to comport with Wikipedia's standards so I'm unsure what to make of it. Maybe its author can explain? It almost seems to border on nonsense... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[author] This article is in a style similar to that of

Hittite religion
-- a list of Anatolian deities and their main features (meaning of names). It does, however, add some cognate terms (names of deities, etc.) from related (Indo-European) religions, to provide some familiar reference-points. Also, it brings the area-study down to a later date, by showing how the transition into Christianity was made by transforming pre-Christian deities into characteristics of Christian ones; which may be helpful to indicate relevance of ancient Anatolian religion to the present-day religious world. (Altogether too many historical studies are written of obsolete beliefs and trends, without any attempt to connect them with surviving ones.)0XQ (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A notable topic but the article needs to be improved so ordinary people can understand what it is talking about. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Exactly what makes this a notable topic according to Wikipedia standards?
      talk) 18:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete, original research.  --Lambiam 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On the article's talk page it's creator wrote "Are requests for deletion possibly objections to the comparative approach, using etymologies and a diachronic framework (including development from the era of cuneiform texts into the onset of Christianity)? Do some editors habitually deem this approach methodologically objectionable? If so, such objection would be more a concern for taste in literary style, than anything more substantive, that may be raising objections."
      talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L'Aquatique[talk] 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply For what reason? What would be accomplished by this? The article seems to be clearly OR, please explain because as it stands this article is fully worthy of deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a quick cleanup of the article. Read it, and see if you think there is a nugget of information worth keeping.--Editor2020 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there have been changes in the article since it was first nominated, I'm going to relist to get more input on its current version. - Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no problems with a comparative approach, diachronically, synchronically, or monochronically. But I have a serious problem with, well, not understanding what this article is about. For instance, what does a statement like "The Ĥattic name for the Moon-god..." have to do with Asianic religion? That's what the article should explain, and it does not--because it is written in what I'll call a non-standard style. And this style is not a literary style, it's simply not very good English. It's incoherent. It's grammatically challenged. I mean, if the terms 'Hattic' and 'Marcionite' simply pop in without any kind of explanation of what they have to do with these Asianic religions, then what is a reader to make of this? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I also have no problem with such an approach, but I have little confidence in the quality of the article. Not just with respect to understandabilty, but at least equally important, I have the impression that the degree of synthesis here amounts to OR. I'd like to see sufficient references to establish that the generalizations here are in fact the academic consensus. DGG (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that this article represents a coherent single topic. It doesn't provide sufficient context to really judge the quality of the contents, and jumps between facts (apparently) about pre-Christian Anatolian religion and Anatolian elements of early Christianity. I don't see the current article developing into anything. Useful factoids can be incorporated into whatever articles on early Christianity or pre-Hellenic religion are appropriate, if sufficient information for creating a whole article about pre-Christian Anatolian religion, one can be created at that time. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:14, 2 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus Rex (film)

Tyrannosaurus Rex (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm a bit hesitant to AFD this as I am a fan of Rob Zombie, and I'm looking forward to this film, but at the same time...it's way too early. Rob himself has said on Fangoria Radio he only has one sentence done on this film (and that Dimension's release date is waaay premature). The only real reliable information on the article is that Sheri Moon is set to star in the film. Everything else is pretty much hearsay at the moment. (Lew Temple's involvement, while probably true, is only sourced from someone's run in with him at a convention on his MySpace, and the plot summary was given by a "regular scooper" to Bloody-Disgusting.com) CyberGhostface (talk) 23:51, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Stands Still

Blood Stands Still (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I see it, these guys fail the

WP:MUSICBIO section of the notability guidelines. No notable members, no nomination for any awards, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 22:44, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPAIF

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

This term is a

neologism. The reference given describes a campaign to have the term 'listed in the dictionary'. There is no evidence that this term has achieved widespread use. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:36, 1 December 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 Nomination as it has been cleaned up to the point where the notability issues have been met. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CANUSA

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

Unnotable "olympic" games per

WP:ORG. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillicothe,Ohio Aerial Photo's

AfDs for this article:
Chillicothe,Ohio Aerial Photo's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles aren't really meant to serve as image galleries. It'd make sense to add these photos (when/if they come 'round) to articles on the area, but I don't see why they need their own separate article. Vianello (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user account has to be autoconfirmed (established for four days and ten edits) to upload images to WP. Commons has no such restriction, so the author of this article can go there and upload the photos now if he wants. There are no images here to transwiki at the moment, so my "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I didn't realise that as I didn' try and upload an image till I'd been on here for several months..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is meant to be an image gallery. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 4 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACT NOW! Drama Company

ACT NOW! Drama Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've watched this article for a few days now as it has been regularly edited by the author. It has yet to show any evidence of notability and is still unreferenced. Enough! Paste Talk 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Google search reviews nothing independant in terms of sources; the article cannot assert it's notability. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 1 December 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

DARTH PANDAduel 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Azulon

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

A very minor character within the plot of the

Ty Lee) with much more screen time had their pages removed for the same reason. His mention on List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Major secondary characters will be sufficient enough once some one adds a sentence or two. -- Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see my comments on the article's talk page. I originally wanted to redirect it, but the editor who has put the most effort into the page objected. I started this AFD based on their request. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:18, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Savage

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS talk 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely
    crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:29, 3 December 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 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Watts (Australian footballer)

Jack Watts (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS talk 22:16, 1 December 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 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Monty

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

An actor with many roles, but they are all minor. I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies

Violet Vector and the Lovely Lovelies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know the guy who wrote this, and he compiled the article in its entirety directly from an interview with the lead singer. What more do you need to hear? It is totally legit.

Local band that doesn't appear to meet

WP:MUSIC, despite a couple of reviews in local media. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This band has been reviewed in both Paste (magazine) [1] and Curve (magazine) [2] on top of being listed on the blog site, Idolator as No.1 for the "Top 40 of 2007"[3] Also, bassist Alex Maiolo also plays in the band Hi Fi Sky with Tim Sommer Blu3cat (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the references for the VVLL articles in Paste< -- its not available online unfortunately.

  • Weak keep. The article still looks way too promotional, but I think the sources establish notability. TheLetterM (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified about the reviews in the magazine, but did not have access to provide accurate references, since I do not own any subscription. I believe the only question left is that of blatant adverstisement. Could you point out the issues that concern you most? If you think about it, any wikipedia article for a band is advertisement inadvertantly. There are no advertised shows, album sales or any sales pitches for one to listen to the band. Clarification would be great because the band is notable enough to deserve an article. Mfleader 1 December 2008

Notability is established through authoritative, independent, third-party, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The independent third parties of importance are the news stations

WP:MUSIC, they also establish notability in being the most prominent representative of the style neo-psychedelia in the Chapel Hill music scene. Both news stations are the major new stations in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle. This is the second largest metropolitan demographic area in the state behind Charlote-Gastonia-Salisbury, which is mostly Charlotte anyways. Please refer North Carolina for demographics. The question of blatant advertisement still stands and I will gladly handle it if clarification is given. Mfleader
1 December 2008 20:33 Eastern Time (US & Canada) (I don't know what time zone everyone else is posting from)

Okay, the poetic flourishes are unintentional, but I am getting better and will cut them out in the future, but Drmies you did cut out the entire band's history rather than make the necessary deletions. Every band on wikipedia has a history, so i will continue to re-edit the page in order to make it satisfactory. Mfleader 20:56 (eastern time)

I haven't found anything on wikipedia about citing a personal interview with a band member. Or does it just not count because I do not count as a reputable source? Mfleader 22:07 01 December 2008(Eastern time)

  • I think that as long as the interview was published in a reliable source it's ok. If it was personal though (you interviewing a band member that wasn't for a publication), there's no real way to gauge the
    verifiability of that interview, and thus can't be cited as a source. What I think is more frowned upon is if it was published by the band itself. TheLetterM (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Right. Now, verifiability can be achieved in any number of ways--the interview could be published, for instance. But that the source be independent, that's another matter. Moreover, and this goes directly to the flourishes, the information in an encyclopedic matter needs to be relevant. The band's history may well be relevant, but who met how when and where, and what they talked about, and how they hit it off, in most cases that's simply not relevant--and the cases where it is relevant, well, you're talking George Martin and the Beatles, or Rick Rubin and Johnny Cash. VV is not there yet. Hairsalon Moshi Moshi? A birthday party? How is that not chit-chat, as my dissertation director used to call my flourishes? It's little things like 'as previously stated.' If it was previously stated, why say it again? In an article about a band that has one EP, an article that calls for three paragraphs at the most? I'm not sure, Mfleader, if you realize that what you might think of as rigorous edits actually increase the chance of the article surviving Afd. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I understand and I will be even more rigorous in deleting minor details you refer to as poetic flourishes. I was under the impression a poetic flourished only involved floury wording, which I am trying to cut out. However, I am determined to redeem this article. Even the meanest, bare-bones history of a band's origin and formation is entirely relevant and necessary in an entry in an encyclopedia; it does not become relevant after a #1 hit or gold album. It was important beforehand. I understand that since they are a relatively new band there will only be a minor entry. Have the issues of notability and blatant advertisement been dealt with thoroughly? Mfleader 21:48, 01 December 2008 (Eastern Time)

The article is much, much better than it was. At least now it's less a blog entry than an encyclopedia entry--the idolator and eardrumsmusic entries are written in pretty much the same style as the earlier versions. Still, and this in reference to the idolator entry (scroll down), the only hair salon I know that is relevant in music is found on "Oh My Lord" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, No More Shall We Part. Seriously, the article still has a lot of fluff.
Now, if the community agrees that the article from the Newsobserver and the Indy blog have enough weight (cause the others really are just blogs, with little or no authority), then WP:N might be established. But I still say that the article is way, way too long for a band that hasn't achieved that much yet (doesn't
WP:Music mention two albums, on a major label?). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please do not discount the "blog" interview on WRAL, while it is a blog, the WRAL news station is definitely a reputable source, hence their electronic authors on their blogs receive the same credence they do. Nor should you forget the reviews in the magazines previously mentioned. I hope that helps my argument. I took out the part about the hair salon too. Yes

WP:Music does mention 2 albums on a major label or active indie label (how ironic would a major indie label be?). Their next album is due out this spring, I know that doesn't mean anything right now, but I guarantee to repost the article upon that release if the community does not feel it meets notability standards now. Mfleader
22:16 01 December 2008 (eastern time)

Mfl, please refer to the Talk page--we're well outside of what should be discussed of AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now--while I don't have easy access to two more of the sources mentioned, I have faith that they're there. Moreover, the author, who is new to WP, is working really hard on this and we'll make this look good; I will accept the band's notability. Dear Admins, sorry for messing up the AfD page; I should have moved to the Talk page sooner. Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The magazine articles would seem to meet our requirements for notability in good sources. Nicely done article too. (Maybe they should come to England and play next years Beautiful Days (festival)) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notes and references

  1. ^ Ray, Austin L. "The Report", "Paste (magazine)", May 2008.
  2. ^ Coble, Margaret. "EP I, Violet Vector & the Lovely Lovelies","Curve (magazine)", June 2008.
  3. ^ Johnston, Maura. "No. 1 (And No. 1): Backyard Tea Parties And Blue Balls", Idolator, 2007-12-31. Retrieved on 2008-12-02.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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

Empezar desde Cero Tour 2008.  Sandstein  23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

RBD - Empezar Desde Cero World Tour

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

Another apparently non-

reliable sources we require. Reyk YO! 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Sandstein  23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never (word)

Never (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary or translation guide. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats great. Than it can go there where the pigs fly and the Hell freezes over.Warrington (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.

Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'


Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'


Warrington (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:OUTCOMES. Lots of potential here, folks. Don't give up on a possibly important encyclopedic topic. Think of Chaos. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stagevu

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails

WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 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. Doesn't meet

WP:CREATIVE Black Kite 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Eamonn Kelly (priest)

Eamonn Kelly (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I first put a PROD tag on this article but it was immediately removed by the author, no changes have been made to the article. This seems to be a non notable priest, with no independent third party refs/sources. I can find no evidence to make me feel this should remain. Paste Talk 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Balloholic is the articles author. Paste Talk 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes...I know. Than You.--Balloholic (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No third party sources, doesn't meet
    talk) 21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Check - http://www.donegaltimes.com/2007/08_1/other.html and http://vocation.covingtondiocese.org/msgr_rutz.html http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/archive/1/114 http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/imprimir.phtml?se=355&ca=620&te=475&id=19033&imprimir=1 --Balloholic (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I don't see anything in those articles to establish notability. Either can't find the subject or trivia coverage --
talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - This is the 2nd keep vote by the articles creator.
talk) 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ref - http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=4238 , a website which publishes publish texts of important Church documents.
Priest Reference - http://www.raphoediocese.com/priests.htm)
Book Ref - http://www.goodshepherdsisters.com/index.php?option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle&artid=4238 , an International Catholic Congregation of Women Religious
Book Ref - http://www.donegallibrary.ie/memory/2006DONEGALSTUDIESlist.pdf , at Donegal library
Ref on sex abuse - http://www.speedreading.com/phpBB2/ftopic77142.html
  • Keep - Notable author/priest/poet as seen in the references given.--86.45.203.248 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy Keep - Third party sources given. Notable author--86.40.208.86 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, I can't help but notice that the author of the article (who has registered a 'keep' !vote twice) and two IP addresses with no contributions whatsoever make the the entirety of the "keep" positions. Trusilver 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I see...but life is full of major coincidences. I think this will pass as a minor one.--Balloholic (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If you're not familiar with
talk) 17:22, 4 December 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.  Sandstein  23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Wyss

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:CREATIVE. No hits in Google News or Books. The only sources in the article are to a WomenWriters.net review and the The Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads main page which leads to this review on literateweb.com
of the book, which is used as the assertion of notability. Neither of the sites that contain any actual content look reliable, and both focus solely on the book. Speaking of the book:

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

Doesn't appear to meet inclusion standards either. It meets none of the criteria listed at

vecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SheepNotGoats, this is the approach I was looking for. Point 1, we already know, and the fact that the author announces right off their relationship with Wyss is more encouraging than discouraging on the reliability front. This would be a serious concern if we were dealing with a controversial topic - BLP, politics, legal situation etc., but for a uncontroversial niche book I'm not convinced our neutrality is seriously compromised. Points 2 and 3 are in the right direction, but only underline our ignorance of the source's reliability rather than positive indication of the unreliability of this particular review. On point 4, the fact that they are chauvinists does not seem to speak to reliability. The review passes the sniff test - it seems quite unlikely from reading it that the author is lying, incompetent or biased, and if I were deciding whether or not to read the book, this review is something that would certainly influence my decision. There is enough uncertainty here to make me inclined towards a weak keep, but not enough decisive indications of unreliability to move me to delete. Skomorokh 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to no substantial coverage in third-party
    WP:BK. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete both, there don't appear to be reliable independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'm off to
    talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep both. Very important book in the Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads.
    ping 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete both - non-notable writer without substantial coverage; fails all notability tests. Book lacks substantial coverage and has no impact of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete both - unless someone comes up with more sources, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.--
    talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What the hell?!? delete both. How is it that a longtime editor does not know better? Friday (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both non-notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've notified my colleagues at the Feminism Task Force of this discussion; I hope it's not canvassing and that someone there might be able to shed some light on the real-world significance of the topics. Skomorokh 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both due to the lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources, neither article meets the applicable inclusion criterion. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Neither the article satisfies the notability requirements.
    shoot! 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment I just want to point out this reidrect page
    talk) 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep both: I, once again, mourn the woefully high standards set for proof of notability on Wikipedia. I've nominated many bands for deletion who have never released an album or single, basing their notability entirely on their future plans. I've nominated authors who haven't yet created anything, basing their notability on webcomics that they have in development. Wikipedia is full of articles about artists who have created nothing of note, and perhaps that is why so many editors have a presumption of non-notability rather than a presumption of notability. I am of the opinion that being a published author, or contributing some significant creative work to popular culture (popular commercials, viral videos, etc.), is grounds for notability. Yes, I realize that millions of books are published each year, which opens the door to articles about thousands of published authors each year. Is that a problem? Shouldn't Wikipedia hope to be an inclusive and invaluable resource in the fields of books, movies, authors and directors? The only issue I have, and the reason for my weak keep, is that I haven't found any evidence that the book has been in print. It was supposedly published in 2005, but I can't find any copies on Amazon. I did find it as a free eBook here. Anyone can create an eBook, so having one does not make one a published author. That said, with the rise and bright future of devices such as Kindle, printed books will likely decline in popularity in favour of electronic versions in the near future (much to the relief of trees everywhere). In that case, the distinction becomes one of "published" (by a reputable commercial publisher) vs. self-published, which any Tom, Dick and Harry can do. On the other hand, should the fact that the book is free, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License, count against her? Her generosity should be encouraged, and an increasing number of authors, artists, musicians, game designers, photographers, and members of other creative fields are making their works freely available under CC licenses. Guns N' Roses officially debuted Chinese Democracy on MySpace, where it's available for free streaming. Is it not a "published" album because they were kind enough to make it free? It comes down to this: if Gormglaith had been published, in physical form, or in electronic form by a regular publisher, it would undeniably make Heidi Wyss a published author and, therefor, notable, and I will vigorously defend the notability of any published author, musician, artist, or other significant contributor to popular culture. In this case I can only find evidence of Gormglaith as a free eBook, but one that is 63 482 words (200 pages) and reviewed by a notable publication. Though only barely, that meets my criteria for being a published author. DOSGuy (talk) 18:32, 5 December 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. Clearly a copyvio of the link provided. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squawk (sound)

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

Seems to be a reworded copy of this page. Seems like a hoax. Soliloquialtalk 21:00, 1 December 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. Clearly a copyvio of the link provided. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squawk (sound)

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

Seems to be a reworded copy of this page. Seems like a hoax. Soliloquialtalk 21:00, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Red Horn (Zoid)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:50, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Helcat

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:49, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Unenlagia (Zoids)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:48, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Seismosaurus (Zoids)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:47, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Iguan

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:46, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some from history. There is consensus not to have an article on this, if not clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Wardick

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as nn per the above. Eusebeus (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perplexed comment. If this is about something called a "warshark", why is the article entitled "wardick"? JulesH (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, leaving the option to merge for interested editors. No sourced real-world information to merge, notability not established. – sgeureka t•c 19:06, 4 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some from history. There is consensus not to have an article on this, if not clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Leoblaze

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:41, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Bear Fighter

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:39, 1 December 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

List of Zoids. Possibly merge some content from history. There is consensus that we should not have an article on this, even though there is not clear consensus to delete the content.  Sandstein  23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Gunbluster

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:37, 1 December 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. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen richer

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

Jen Richer created this page to let the world know how great she is for doing her job. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it's mildly disconcerting that she doens't know that her own surname should have a capital letter ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:23, 1 December 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (

DARTH PANDAduel 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Alok Mehta

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

vanity page, and there isn't much to be done here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Google news seems to be full of statements he made as president of the Editor's Guild or Outlook magazine editor. Juzhong (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Ahem, appears I've made a mistake in nominating. Article tagged for cleanup. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:59, 1 December 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, CSD A7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aperion

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

This band does not seem to be

notable. The only reference provided is the band's home page, and I can't find anything on Google except for myspacey and facebooky type links, and material on unrelated things of the same name. Reyk YO! 19:58, 1 December 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. Hoax from a sock of serial hoaxer 5ivetv (talk · contribs) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusiJoke

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

Non-existent channel, no

WP:HOAX, prod removed by anonymous IP without offering a reason. JD554 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 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. Blatant consensus to keep. (

neuro(talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Faggot (slang)

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

Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. This article consists solely of dictionary information: definition, origin, etymology, and usage. In an encyclopedia, the entry for "faggot", as a synonym (however derogatory and offensive) for "homosexual", should the same as that for "homosexual", because they cover the same topic. We do not generally have separate entries for different words that refer to the same concept, and I see no reason (given the exclusively dictionary-oriented content of this article) to make an exception here. Powers T 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Faggot != homosexual != gay. They are clearly different things with different usages and different histories. They no more mean the same than catholic == christian == zealot. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, why is there no encyclopedic information here on faggots who are not homosexuals? (Or, if you mean to say that faggots are a strict subset of homosexuals, then on what makes faggot-homosexuals different than non-faggot homosexuals.) Instead, the article talks about the word. I would welcome an article on the concept of a faggot, if it is indeed significantly different from the concept of a homosexual person. Powers T 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homosexuals rarely identify as "faggots". But bigots often identify homosexuals as "faggots". Therefore the article on homosexuality isn't compatible with an article on "faggot" for merger or redirect (perhaps on Conservapedia, but not here where NPOV rules) and we can happily have both articles since they don't address the same subject other than in the minds of bigots. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So some people don't use the word, but the people who do use the word, use it to mean exactly the same thing as the word "homosexual". That's a textbook example of a synonym. Powers T 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, people who do use the word mean it perjoratively (the subject of this article) whilst people who use homosexual mean it neutrally (the subject of homosexuality). This is just the same way we have an article on the n-word and an article on black people, without redirecting one to the other. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – No I didn't miss your implications. What I am saying is that at least several hundred scholars, as noted in my link above, thought enough of the term to actually write books – papers and essays about it, not just relying on the dictionary term. I believe an
    encylopedia is for. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment-And no disrespect taken – The reason it comes to
    disruptive. ShoesssS Talk 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 20/Births

AfDs for this article:
July 20/Births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an orphaned test article. No other articles of this sort exist. Duplicate of information on July 20 or indiscriminate information that is not/can not be listed on July 20.

Also nominating the following related articles:

July_20/Events1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July_20/Events2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July_20/Deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It's possible that in 2005 this was an experiment at breaking up the existing article July 20 into its components. However, even at 34 megabytes, that July 20 article isn't all that cumbersome and splitting it up has proved unnecessary. Indeed, if any article shouldn't be broken up, the July 20 (or any other day) article would be an example of something that ain't broke and don't fix it. It's not a bad idea for someone to check to see if there's any birth, death, or event that got added to one of these lists and not to to the main article. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from other concerns, this name is also problematic because of its format: it fails the statement on
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions under the header "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles." As such, it's nto a likely target, so after ensuring that all this information is on the actual 20 July article. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Hop 2

AfDs for this article:
Hood Hop 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable unreleased album, sourced solely from the artist's MySpace page. A previous AFD resulted in a redirect to the artist's article, with the closing admin stating the redirect could be deleted if the album didn't surface. The album hasn't shown up and it should be deleted per

WP:V. Also of note, the redirect was reverted multiple times and hasn't been there since four days after the AfD closed. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Cocchi

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

This was speedied twice, once for A7 (no assertion of notability) and once for G12 (copyright infringement). For me, notability is still rather unclear, and the text is very similar to the subject's home page [15]. But I welcome other opinions. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, weakly. This probably has just barely enough assertions of importance not to be a speedy. But essentially, it says that there is an artist in Italy whose day job is a schoolteacher, and who has had a number of exhibitions. References to reliable sources would help. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:26, 30 November 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed heading.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Alex Drake

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly is "WP:NFICT"... it seems to be a non-existant page, and accordingly you can't nominate for deletion "per this!"Johnson8776 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - its the main character! Plus the series returns after christmas. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The principal character in an important series. That ought ot be enough justification, but it would be highly advisable to gind and add secondary references to her character and role in the plot from whatever published criticism there may already be. all such shows are discussed, though the sources are not always the ones we are used to using. DGG (talk) 19:21, 1 December 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix heading.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Annie Cartwright

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NF. Mikeblas (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - for all reasons stated above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - there is absolutely no reason why this should even be considered. Character is a major part of series and if she was taken out then Sam Tyler and Gene Hunt would too. (Quentin X (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge: to show's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A principal character in an important show. That's a sufficient criterion. I'd accept a merge, but only if the entire contents were merged,and could be maintained there. Organizing the material isn't what's important here; its keeping the material. Experience shows that such merged information often tends to get whittled down, and then the merged list of characters even gets nominated for deletion, sometimes for having insufficient content. Not saying it will necessarily happen here, but it does happen. DGG (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. None. Since when do we keep non-stub articles that don't have reliable sources? Powers T 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Life_on_Mars_(TV_series)List of Life on Mars characters. Certainly worth a redirect, however there are two issues. First, as noted above, the lack of any reliable sources - one blog does not cut the mustard. Second, and more important (imo) there is no real world perspective.[1] The proposed guidelines on notabilty for fictional topics say that "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".[2] The same article suggests a helpful question: "How does the reader's understanding of this topic suffer if this fictional element is ... only summarized in the main article?" Not at all, imo. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Life on Mars characters. The character has no "life" beyond the series and no useful sources to base the article upon. But in the list of characters, some of the information would be useful (albeit still lacking sources). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:55, 1 December 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Chris Skelton

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly is "WP:NFICT"... it seems to be a non-existant page, and accordingly you can't nominate for deletion "per this!"Johnson8776 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.

Strong keep - I agree with everything the above user has said. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep as per Andi064 (Quentin X (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to show's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 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  23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danyel T. Reiche

Danyel T. Reiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability under

new account, so take that into consideration, and remember not to bite! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep Multiple academic books by a good publisher shows notability as an author and an academic. That's sufficient to be an authority in the field. We go by accomplishments, and its just barely enough. DGG (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please notice that he is not an author of these books, just a series editor. Twri (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom does not yet pass
    WP:PROF muster. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Clearly a notable figure in his region and field of study. agree with dgg otherwise.--Buridan (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of encyclopedic notability of a professor provided in the article. Twri (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Within a relevant field of study, in this case renewable energy policies in Europe, Reiche has had a significant impact. He was assistant professor and is now professor at the American University of Beirut (at least the Wuppertal Institute says so, though the article states otherwise), edited several volumes, including the widely cited "Handbook of Renewable Energies in the EU" (mentioned above) and a journal. Reiche has a large (thoug not exceptionally large) publication list, while he surely is a still rather young scholar. Looks relevant to me. Nils Simon (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the Wuppertal p., he's still an assistant professor. They call him professor at the top as a courtesy title--but look lower down at "Lehraufträge" (teaching positions)-- he was appointed Asst Prof. at AUB in 2008. I changed my !vote to Weak Keep upon confirming it. DGG (talk) 17:03, 4 December 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix header.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Gene Hunt

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Loads of media publications have Gene Hunt in it, everyone knows of the actor Philip Glenister who plays the character, the amount of books, media publications and TV he has been on clearly shows its notable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that a list with potentially over 100,000 entries is not useful.  Sandstein  23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean War veterans

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

DELETE - This article was removed from deletion by Stwalkerster on 27 November 2008 for reasons that are unexplained. Previously, all lists of veterans (e.g., List of World War II veterans, List of Spanish American War veterans, List of World War I veterans, etc.) were deleted as they are cumbersome, cannot be complete, and serve no useful purpose when the category tag is properly used. Please support this article's second deletion. Spacini (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how can you say this serves no useful purpose? You people are weird. Anyway it might be complete but it's not cumbersome at the moment. Perhaps it should be more like People of the Spanish Civil War but I like the notes. Juzhong (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there like some kind of trick to using the category tag? Maybe you can use google to get the first lines of the articles, is that what you mean by "properly used"? Juzhong (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists such as this do not serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia; they provide no criticism, context, or analysis. As I noted, all other such lists were deleted many months ago. This list was resurrected with no explanations provided as to why it was restored. Your example of the People of the Spanish Civil War category is an excellent example. People of the Korean War would be an excellent alternative to this list. Spacini (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This provides context, because tells me who the fuck they were and what they did during the war, exactly what a category doesn't do. You people have a bizarre definition of "useful". Juzhong (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the list serves no useful purpose. And lest anybody accuse me of knocking the flag, let me say that this is certainly not a list to honor Korean War veterans. Why is Neil Armstrong on here, but his fellow Ohioan David Abernathy [16] would not be welcome here, despite a greater sacrifice? Because this is a "List of Korean War veterans who have Wikipedia articles written about them", and that is indeed covered by a category. Contribute to your local honor guard. Visit a vet at a nursing home or a VA hospital. Attend a ceremony and thank the veterans who are recognized there. We can acknowledge our veterans in ways other than making a Wikipedia list of celebrities. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think some people might want to avoid articles like Neil Armstrong's in favor of those who are notable for what they did during the war? Juzhong (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm misunderstanding the question, please let me know. My answer would be "no" -- the list doesn't have information for people to decide whether Neil Armstrong is more notable for what he did during the war than any other person on the list; nor should it ever be asserted that Neil Armstrong is better than "this veteran", or not as good as "that veteran". However, the purpose of the list is to show "notable" persons who served in Korea, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of regular people who served in Korea. I understand the point about categories being difficult to search; and I'll admit that the it-would-work-better-as-a-category argument is one of the more idiotic arguments against a list (as if we had to choose between one or the other!). That being said, however, this is nothing more than an exclusive, members only, People magazine list of certain persons who went to Korea and who got the chance to come home and prosper in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. While both this list and a category can list blue-links who were in Korea during 1950-53, the category states, facts-only, no judgment, no point-of-view, that the persons within it also happen to have served in Korea War. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, some people on the list just happened to go Korea and had the chance to come home and prosper, and then some people are notable have wikipedia articles for what they did during the war. E.g.
No Kum-Sok. Anyway never mind, I can see from the votes below that this place is just a stupidity farm. Juzhong (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this article was fresh produce from the stupidity farm. It's just that nobody at the market is buying it. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, by trying to argue and innocently making false and disprovable statements you actually gave me the impression it might be worth talking to you. Juzhong (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I enjoy reading your comments. You're getting better at sarcasm. Keep practicing. Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep taunting, dirtbag. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, potentially a list of thousands of people, and better covered by a category. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does the number of people make notes less valuable and not more so ? Juzhong (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An obvious case where a category is much more appropriate. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to delete this list. Instead you will present me with a long list of celebrities whose names I don't recognize. I will have no way of finding people who actually had a significant role in the war except by going through every single one (that google idea doesn't work). I am pondering the best response to this, and I don't think it will involve trying to work within the system. Juzhong (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always userfy the article, make any improvements that you see fit, and then bring it back up. As far as narrowing a list down from all participants to major participants, there are a lot of books about the Korean War, whether in a public library or online at Google books. In some cases, a book is quicker to search than the Internet. I was editing a list of the officers executed after Stauffenberg's 1944 assassination attempt, and borrowing Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich saved a lot of time. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naraio

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

Appears to fail

WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I don't think to remove this page from wikipedia. This is an open source product and It will help to developers and software companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.95.89 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, how to add notability for open source product. If possible please add notability or provide some guidelines. Meanwhile I added "infobox" in Naraio wiki.
  • Delete spammity spam spammy spam. JuJube (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this spam is no good. JBsupreme (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should I do so it should not be removed from wikipedia. This is very valuable product like xampp, LAMP or WAMP.--Damanjeet
  • ARE YOU MAD ???? I am asking for help and you removed the page............................................................................AT LEAST YOU CAN INFORM>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

WITHOUT ANY REASON U REMOVED THE 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Phyllis Dobbs

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She is a crucial character in Life on Mars. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated. (Quentin X (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge: to show's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ray Carling

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:FICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - principle character and well referenced, along with all the reasons stated above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:36, 29 November 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 and then redirect to

List_of_Zoids#R Black Kite 00:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redler

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Your reasoning does not explain why you chose delete over other options. - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of it doesn't? The nom recommended deletion and gave reasons. Eusebeus concurred with the desired outcome and the reasoning. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to another Zoids article. Even when the heavy plot detail is removed, there's real life information left that could be discussed. - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many Zoids exist? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over two hundred exist according to the lead in most of these. They really can't be covered outside of "This is robotic *animal* with *signature feature*." TTN (talk) 00:21, 2 December 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 Procedural close. This is a faulty bot listing (the bot isn't faulty, but the listing is) - the article in question is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler. Further comments should be at that AfD discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header.
    DARTH PANDAduel 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sharon Granger

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

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Listing for AfD per WP:NFICT. Mikeblas (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly is "WP:NFICT"... it seems to be a non-existant page, and accordingly you can't nominate for deletion "per this!"Johnson8776 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article about a principle character in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that it isn't notable because it "isn't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia article also link to this article. Article is well referenced, and should not have been nominated, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 T . C 09:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - principle character, and other reasons stated above. The series returns after Christmas, its not worth deleting because new information will be added about the character. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the comments above: the deletion policy says deletion should not be performed when an article's problem can be dealt with by editing. You said there's no sources in the article, but there's no evidence you made an attempt to find any before you nominated the page. - Mgm|(talk) 21:09, 1 December 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. Doesn't appear to be a suitable redirect after deletion, feel free to create one if I'm mistaken Black Kite 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsugumi Takakura

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent

original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

    • This is a perfectly plausible search term. Why not do that? It's impossible to merge or listify something that gets deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm expressing my view that the article doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. I also understand that the closing admin may chose to redirect this article or direct that it be merged to a redirect target. Insofar as the admin would understand that deletion and merging are usually incompatible, I am offering those views. I don't mean "delete" then merge. I mean, this page could be deleted (As this is AfD and it fails WP:N) but that if we choose to redirect my vote shouldn't be interpreted as contraverting that. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Movie Rewards

Disney Movie Rewards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish why this scheme is notable. Page reads like an advert for Disney. And as per

WT:FILM Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 1 December 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. G6, non-controversial housekeeping. Mgm|(talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation provided by this page is not needed because it only disambiguates two articles.

Duke of Reichstadt currently redirects there. A hatnote has been placed at Napoleon II of France to facilitate disambiguation with Petar Stojanović's operetta. Noca2plus (talk) 18:18, 1 December 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 sources that exist appear to be trivial at best, trivial local coverage and primary sources do not combine to show notability. That said, there were enough dissenting views that I'll be happy to userify this article upon request, if anyone thinks it can be developed into a properly sourced article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1

Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 article fails to establish notability for a local unit of a non-commercial organization. It does not show why this unit is unique out of 52,000 Boy Scout troops in the U.S.

Hawk Mountain Camp is a property managed and used by Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 and fails the same standards. —— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and salt, if possible merge any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Experience has shown that very few Scout Troops or camps are notable enough for their own article. "One of the oldest", "the only troop" in community X, etc. do not cut it. The oldest in New York State might if it had continuous existence since foundation. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that essay. Yes, topics that are obscure or specialized can be notable, but they are subject to the same standards as every other article. I would not have nominated these articles if I thought that they were redeemable in establishing notability. The appropriate place for these articles is at ScoutWiki. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project guideline is at
WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles. You will note that it links to the applicable Wikipedia guidelines and adds some discussion on related issues. We don't have special notability guidelines for Scouting since the project operates within the greater Wikipedia; we are not a walled garden. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You really didn't address the main idea of my concern/argument. If you don't want local units, just say you don't want them. The way all these "guidelines" are written anybody can reasonably argue that their troop is notable. They are, quite frankly, a joke. That is the trouble with a "top-down approach". It allows persons like yourself to "refer to this" or "read this thing that I wrote", instead of actually addressing my input and looking at this debate as a singular issue. I don't give a crap about your self-written guidelines! Address the issue at hand!!!! You are deflecting the argument and simply redirecting everything I say to a "rule" that you had a hand in writing. I know this game, I do it for a living- I'm a government regulator. And people hate it when us regulators just quote regulation and code and tell people to do it. I'm not like that and I do not ever intend on being like that. I like to sit down with the person(s) and listen to their problem and come up with a solution we can both live with. In the end, that's all anyone wants- to come to a mutual agreement that all can live with. Please, address my concerns and don't deflect the issue to some stupid rule or guideline. Hear me out.

Why don't you write about your former and/or current unit? We could compare now notable these units are. That way there you have something to compare our page with. I understand you are either doing this for one of two reasons: you really don't want local units on wikipedia (which a personal preference) or you are trying to make this article better by challenging the author and editors to make this article more notable. I honest assumption on your intention is the latter reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmpenzone (talk • contribs)

To answer your last question: I have been a member of two packs, nine troops, one post and one crew; none are notable outside of their community. This is getting way off the subject of this article. Since you are directly addressing me, please take it to my talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remind all users to please
personal attacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
comment - To my knowledge this is the first time the article has been at AfD. There was a merge that failed in 2007. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on that last !vote, I was expecting to be surprised by sources. I wasn't. Yes, there are two local newspaper articles about local scouts selling Christmas trees and local scouts going to camp. This is trivial, hometown stuff. Otherwise, each and every scout troop, community theater group, high school marching band, nursing home, etc. would be notable, based on similar coverage in similar newspapers. This troop does not rise above the rest of these non-notable groups through substantial coverage in reliable sources. -
    talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has coverage in newspapers, although local, there is no reason to exclude it. It is verifiable and notable at least at a local level.--
    chitchat 09:07, 5 December 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 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot

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

Does not seem to be a notable author and I judge him to fail

talk) 17:45, 1 December 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 Michael Talbot.  Sandstein  23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holographic Universe

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

Fails

talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - does it make sense to merge this with the Michael Talbot deletion discussion? Matchups
Nah, that just gets complicated. -Verdatum (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 27k raw hits Perhaps, but only 812 unique ghits. Ah the perils of Google. -Verdatum (talk) 20:29, 1 December 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 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. H. Atwater

P. M. H. Atwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable author. Fails

talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, here's one news article which should count: [20]. Her book Beyond the Light was also reviewed in Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, and Booklist (although I can only see the abstracts at ProQuest.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pioneering researcher in the field of near death experiences. (While it's possible to discount any paranormal explanations for these experiences, the experiences themselves are investigated and documented by scientists, so it's clearly a valid field to be pioneering in.) Her work is referenced in The Lancet according to this page. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, 1 December 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 P. M. H. Atwater.  Sandstein  23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Memory

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

Not a notable

talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that I have already added the content of this article to author P. M. H. Atwater's article. That does not preclude someone else from expanding this article and making the case that the book is notable enough for a separate article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Sue Larson

Cynthia Sue Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

soapbox by the author. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shift
.

talk) 17:34, 1 December 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:SYNTH. The article notes that "the term is marginally used", asnd it is not at all clear that there is a common understanding what "reality shift" means.  Sandstein  23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reality shift

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

Essentially, this article is an

not
what an encyclopedia is for.

The article was stared as a

soapbox for Cynthia Sue Larson who uses the term herself, but has not received the recognition of independent commentators required to develop an independent page. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Sue Larson
.

talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIS and database development

GIS and database development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for posting abstracts or papers. Looks like most of this content is synthesized from the see also links in any case, and is thus redundant. roux   16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Cazares

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 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, proficient poker player but fails to meet

WP:SNOW among registered contributors. Deiz talk 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Zach Henderson

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

Removed prod. Non-notable poker player who fails to meet

WP:N. He has only entered a single tournament and finished 11th in it. The article claims he is ranked 11th in the world but this is a fallacy as he has only competed in the one tournament and it wasn't even one of the majors. I believe this is a likely self-bio. Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It is ridiculous to claim that a World Series of Poker tournament is a "non-major" and just goes to show the lack of knowledge of the party trying to have this particular article deleted. As a professional poker player, I think it's absurd to call Zach6668 anything other than notable. Just because he is mostly a cash game player does not mean he isn't entirely relevant in the poker community. Removing this because of an ignorant reader's lack of knowledge about a significant entity in the poker world goes in direct opposition to the point of Wikipedia; namely to educate and inform about people or things of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)

There are different levels of events, the World Series of Poker is a major group of tournaments, but not all of the events in the World Series are of the same notability level. For example in the World Series, the major events would be the World Championship events and the Main Event. Players have to meet
WP:NOTE to qualify for an article, he does neither. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And to be more specific to poker he fails
Poker player notability guidelines. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Henderson has received public recognition of his notability; he has been recognized as a featured member on one of the most popular poker-related discussion boards.--Venicebeach (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • —
      few or no other edits
      outside this topic.
    • Wasn't that the same site he was the moderator of? That's quite something. --fvw* 18:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny that you would use his popularity amongst the people who look up to him as a reason AGAINST his inclusion here. Of course there's an effort to keep this here. Zach Henderson has inspired and helped many of them. Zach Henderson is only not well-known to those outside of the poker universe; those who only casually follow televised tournaments. It's like saying that Andre Johnson isn't a relevant NFL player because the Texans aren't ever on TV. Zach Henderson is the Andre Johnson of poker.
  • Delete. 0. 1. None. None. None. 0. None. None. 0. I think that speaks for it self! vıdıoman 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [24] No other sources have written about him? His status has stretched from North America to Europe, as the British tournament tracking site "The Hendon Mob" has an entry for him. I think that is the solid proof that Zach is indeed a legit poker star and his name is simply being dragged through the mud right now for no apparent reason.With all of the false articles on Wikipedia for someone to attack, how can you decide that this one doesn't fit the billing when infact it IS a REAL person who has REAL accomplishments? Whoever is challenging this is not only doing a disservice to Wikipedia, but a disservice to poker players around the world. Thank you for your time. --King1305
  • Delete ASAP Clearly not a notable person, the influx of "support" for this article comes from a post on an internet forum. http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=131148 . --Snitchaments (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well now they have a fake account in my name to amuse themselves with over there. It's like we are dealing with two year olds. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, the maturity of the internet, eh? You've hit the bigtime, dude! Resolute 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly non-notable. Write your autobiography somewhere else, Zach. Resolute 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Love that earth is linked. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please come back again when 1) your obsessive Paparazzi fanbase matures and 2) you can establish
    MuZemike (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To be on wikipedia you do not have to be famous, you have to be notable. Hundreds of these deletion discussions go on every day, the fact his article is being deleted is not something out of the ordinary. Secondly atleast three of the people who voted delete above, including myself are Canadian. So its hardly Anti-Canadianism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might note that the word "notability" was used once and "notable" was used once in my previous statement. In any case, I find it hard to believe that Chris Crocker, the kid who screamed to leave Britney alone, is the kind of notability that you strive to see included during your run as Wikipedia Nazi, yet, there he is. It seems to me more like you had your feelings hurt and have decided to make this ridiculous campaign your week's mission. Also, with that level of insecurity, it is not surprising to me that you're a self-loathing Canadian and, thus, anti-Canadian. Some of us really appreciate our neighbors to the north. LEAVE ZACH ALONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
I might note that you edited your comment to say that after I posted... -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no record of him performing that edit.68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from what I'd assume a reliable media source: "I host a North American Wide Poker Radio Show on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 98, called the Hardcore Poker Show. I have conferred with Zach Henderson several times on poker related questions, and value his opinions and skillsets as a limit poker expert. To suggest that either his accomplishments or his knowledege are not relevant is simply inaccurate. I would have Zach Henderson as a guest on our show at any time, and our guest list is a who's who of the poker world. With no offense intended, I would suggest that deleting an entry on a poker player would require the expertise of those in the poker world. While I am in no way in a position to discuss the merits of a mathematicians accomplishments in the world of math, I certainly would expect the same courtesy be extended to those of us that make our living in the poker world." -Chris Tessaro, Host, The Hardcore Poker Show. 68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And maybe eventually one of you guys will read WP:Reliable sources and see that you need reliable published sources in things like magazines and news papers etc. This isn't a job, references from fellow poker people don't get you an article. -Djsasso (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ladies and Gentleman - I truly respect your opinion and your participation in
    Zach be able to point to his inclusion here. I hope I explained the reasons behind the current debate and hope more for your continued participation in Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The following has been

transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zach Henderson
:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=104830

No other sources have written about him? His status has stretched from North America to Europe, as the British tournament tracking site "The Hendon Mob" has an entry for him. I think that is the solid proof that Zach is indeed a legit poker star and his name is simply being dragged through the mud right now for no apparent reason.

With all of the false articles on Wikipedia for someone to attack, how can you decide that this one doesn't fit the billing when infact it IS a REAL person who has REAL accomplishments? Whoever is challenging this is not only doing a disservice to Wikipedia, but a disservice to poker players around the world.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King1305 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately that is just a listing, he needs to have articles written about him not just listings. See
WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kirkey

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

Despite being mentioned in a book once, this for me does not constitute notability --fvw* 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3 Network

Channel 3 Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Internet video "network", with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Taking to AfD instead of prod because "parent" is at AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian's.) If the parent article is kept, we may want to redirect this there instead of deleting. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's probably a CSD because of the no notability asserted thing, but AfD is so much fun, we might as well do that! delete --fvw* 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reliable sources not found to establish notability or even satisfy
    WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Cappiello, Non è un mistero (Lorenzo Cappiello (EP), Non è un mistero, Lorenzo (CD), No es ningún misterio

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

Vanity, no google references aside from the blog and the information listed on the pages is questionable. --fvw* 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Google.it brings up a fair number of Lorenzo Cappiello hits, but they don't seem to be relevant. If the songs were going Gold and Platinum over the past year, they'd be mentioned online.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Uncited, no Google references. Numerous removals of the AfD template on the page indicate a non-cooperative author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All citations added by the author to Non è un mistero have failed verification. Nineteen failed verifications constitutes vandalism, to my thinking. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a known vandal on it.wiki. He got an infinite block for nonsense contribution, he created only hoaxes and multiple sockpuppets. The entries reported here are all blocked because of repeated creation. Here is the link to the discussion, and here his known SP. Just to clear the whole situation. Thanks, --Gliu 20:10, 3 December 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. Black Kite 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This non-notable band overwrote a previous version referring to a 1960's Australian band. I have restored this version, as this band may prove to be notable. Black Kite 00:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Groove (band)

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

Appears to be non-notable YouTube band. Band appears to have been deleted at least twice before as The Grooves (Band) and The Groove (Group) based on the talk page history of the user. Also note deletions of The Groove Holiday (Film) and Groove Studios, as well as Rosalyn Ross, one of the members of this group. Also included in this AfD:

roux   16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per
    WP:MUSIC. --fvw* 17:10, 1 December 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. Speedy close - article was just nominated on Nov. 28 and closed yesterday. DRV is

that way Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sandeep Unnikrishnan

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

Died in the recent attacks in India. Not

notable on his own. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There was an AFD discussion on this article and the notice was removed just yesterday. Would you mind removing the Afd that you have just put and let people expand the article. Indoresearch (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But of course.... WITHDRAWN GtstrickyTalk or C 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of European football players who play outside Europe

List of European football players who play outside Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Consensus is that lists of footballers from nation X playing in nation Y are not-notable - see this AfD and this AfD for recent examples. The relevant categories contained within Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality should suffice. GiantSnowman 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
List of Mexican footballers currently playing outside Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dutch players in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GiantSnowman 15:40, 1 December 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Champika Liyanaarachchi

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

Non-notable. Cited source mentions her in passing (as the target of a threat), most of information in article isn't supported. Creator was indef blocked by myself for disruptive editing - including possible copyvios.

Tan | 39 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

keep, notable. The lady seems indeed to be the editor of said newspaper [34]. The newspaper is one of the major newspapers in Sri Lanka, as such it is notable. I do not now, what "editor" means in the Sri Lankan context, but if it means the same as in the West, she can probably claim notability derived from the newspaper she is the editor of. Also consider

WP:BIAS when judging the notability of persons from small countries. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep based on sources found. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to withdraw this AfD nomination, but am on a mobile source and it is difficult. If the next passing admin would close as "keep", I'd appreciate it.
    Tan | 39 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arjen Bonera

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

I can find no sources for this person outside of Wikipedia; two Dutch editors have also voiced concern on the article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no evidence that such a person exists - pretty clear hoax. Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if possible speedy): looks like a hoax and quacks like a hoax.  --Lambiam 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I'd go along with those editors on the talk page, especially the first one - he in particular seems to know what he's talking about. Couple that with there being no mention of this guy in any search engine, especially his supposed role with the national team (this link is pretty conclusive as it lists all the capped players by club - his name appears nowhere, pretty suspect for a player who we're led to believe was a cornerstone of the team during the total football era), and we've definitely got ourselves a hoax.
    (rawr!) 09:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete as probable hoax. GiantSnowman 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two comments below were added to the talk page of this AfD rather than the AfD page itself, I've copied them here for completeness -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather was Dutch and he used to tell me of Bonera. Although he seems to be little known, my grandfather was a real fan of Bonera for his pace and guile. Of course this is not strong evidence, but I promise that deletion of this article would be unjustified. Perhaps we can somehow contact Arjen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.123.70 (talk • contribs)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for ... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. (from
WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:00, 4 December 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. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|(talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andocs

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

Page has not been touched by an actual user (not a bot) since [35], and it is not a notable, and has no history to note of. HairyPerry 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the article is a stub, and thus in need of expansion, it also appears to be a real place and thus notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have done a quick search for Andocs and it is a notable place of pilgrimage - have expanded the article thus. Richard Hock (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Richard, great minds think alike: I was doing the same thing, but got a few more sources. I hope you don't mind that in the ensuing edit conflict I was a bit bold. My apologies, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No worries... the article looks great now! Richard Hock (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close you can close this now, I agree that this article has been expanded enough to stand on its own. HairyPerry 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Ham United F.C. timeline

West Ham United F.C. timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a wholly unnecessary fork of the much more comprehensive (and easier to read) History of West Ham United F.C., which already covers all the major events in the club's history. Additionally, the club's managers are covered at West Ham United F.C.#Managers, so there is no need for this article ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 1 December 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

Ultima II.  Sandstein  23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Minax (Ultima)

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

Plot summary, and looking around there doesn't seem to be any information for

WP:N. Last edit to the article was July 30. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Ultima II (just create a plot heading and dump what's here underneath) and redirect. Stripping out the pre-amble and trivia would result in a basic plot outline for Ultima II, I'll tweak it if that's the result of the AFD. Someoneanother 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Court

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

Though there are numerous sources listed, the only sources with non-trivial coverage do not appear to meet reliable sources guidelines (i.e., non-notable music website). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I see the same, no
    hits. Also, I think this article is very poor written and could changed, but would much rather save the time to delete instead of somebody making a 2nd Nomination for this artice to go to AFD. HairyPerry 15:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note to Mr. HairyPerry that an article is only subject for deletion if it is utterly unsalvageable. I'm not entirely sure that the band meets the
    applicable standard, but I am sure that "it needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion. We can have all the AfDs we want about "poorly written" and each will be closed with prejudice. Still, gnews reports no obvious hits that I can find which are not certainly trivial. Though there is yet research to be done, I've yet to find specific grounds for inclusion. 74.224.47.231 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Additionally, more of a question. Two notable musicians,
WP:BAND, but for now, I don't have a good reason to object to deletion. --Same fellow as above, 74.224.47.231 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails notability guidelines.
    L0b0t (talk) 15:31, 1 December 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 by Orangemike. Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Podgurski

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

Seems to fail

WP:MUSIC. The article claims that he has released several solo albums, but allmusic doesn't know him. No sources are given. Google shows only wiki mirrors. A hoax? B. Wolterding (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominating this apparent duplicate:

--B. Wolterding (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Unleashed

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

Spam-looking, blatant advertisement-looking article with no reliable sources about non-notable software. "Features" are copyvio from http://www.hifiunleashed.com/guitarunleashed.php GreyCat (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this statement I'm going along with a speedy delete. We aren't here to build community for a new product. Mangoe (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Looks like a case of promotion. I've put a welcome on the creator's talk page which will hopefully help out when/if this product becomes notable in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word "we" in that post was a tip off to some major
COI. So, yeah. Blatant advertising. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. Reserves seasons

Arsenal F.C. Reserves seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is completely unsourced. Furthermore, it also seems to lie outside the accepted criteria for notability for subjects in this genre. –

Jay 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Arsenal F.C. Academy seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Benjamin

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman modern continuity

Batman modern continuity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a bibliography of Batman trade paperbacks that fit into the "modern continuity". Aside from the fact that not all of them do ("Year Two" was removed from continuity a while back), it's wholly focused on a fictional chronology that is not well-defined and provides no secondary sources to establish the nobility of this organization scheme. Thus original research plays a primary factor in determing which books belong here. It's very much a subjective list of "canon" issue collections that has no place on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question If I understand you correctly, this is just a list of what the page author considers to be current Batman canon? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, modern continuity is such that anything before the One Year Later mark might not count anymore anyway (most of it does count, but not all of it). What does or doesn't count now is uncited OR. Also, I see no justification for some of the ordering that occurs. Year One, Two & Three are obvious, but why is the Batman Chronicles Special "The Gauntlet" placed where it is? There's probably a reason but it's probably an OR one. And that's only looking at the Batman section. I didn't even look at the rest of the Bat-Family stuff Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the points raised by WesleyDodds and Duggy 1138. The primary problem is that the organization of this bibliography is original research as evidenced by the fact that it contains no citations. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Armstrong

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatheek

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

This article is unsourced and unverified. The references that are given appear to not be fully thought through. The article may refer to a

neologism, perhaps something made up in school one day. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A little experimentation with babelfish suggests that these are just French/Dutch translations of media center, that is, library. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is just a foreign word for something we already have word for. Mediathek in German = Multimedia centre/library/lab. The place you go in universities to watch foreign language TV or borrow obscure 1970's films.Yobmod (talk) 20:06, 4 December 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. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The only comments indicating "keep" seem to argue against the principle of the nomination, and is not rooted in policy. Malinaccier (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bennell

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:29, 1 December 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 noted, this player does not meet

WP:N is shaky, in most articles that mention him, he is merely mentioned briefly or in the context of other places, as one might expect for the 51st pick in the draft. I considered carefully the Keep rationales by User:Hughesdarren and User:Allied45
, but eventually assigned them lesser weight due to their rebuttal and the fact that they did not appear to be solidly grounded in policy. That does not mean of course, that the article should not be recreated if he ever gets a game, or if more substantial third-party coverage surfaces.

As always with notability cases, I am happy to userify if someone wants to keep a backup copy of the article around just in case either of the two circumstances above come to pass. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Jetta

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)

Stephen Hill (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded (incorrectly on the second occasion) - Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Keep the article is well referenced. An athlete can be notable even if they do not play in a fully professional league if they have received enough coverage. Icewedge (talk) 08:24, 6 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jones

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

Appears to fail

WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS talk 11:27, 1 December 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. The nominator did not provide any reason for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batting pads

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

This new article appears to perform the same function as the present article pads. I propose that the content be merged, and that this one be turned into a redirect. Further, it may be necessary to move the present article 'pads' to 'cricket pads', redirect 'pads' to 'pad', then add 'cricket pads' to 'pad', since the word 'pad' may refer to all manner of protective gear, as well as sanitary products and so on. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since none of your suggestions involve deletion, I'm closing this nomination. Please visit:
    Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mali grad (Small castle) Kamnik

Mali grad (Small castle) Kamnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable location; it's a slope, for jimbo's sake. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is now, Delete. The name is inappropriate and the present content can be merged in the Kamnik article. --Tone 12:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure that the writer meant to say "slope", as it seems to discuss a castle. Nevertheless, no proof of notability; I'm not sure what can be merged to Kamnik, as it's unclear and altogether unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above two comments. The text looks like it's been copy-pasted from a tourist guide. --Yerpo (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Slope" would appear to be a simple mistranslation. There are loads of reliable notability-demonstrating sources available from Google Books and Google Scholar searches.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 3 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graft Architects

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

Not as blatant an advertisment as many articles I've seen, but it's still an advertisement. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:38, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petros Xanatos

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

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 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 per

WP:IAR Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mukherjee of Konnagar

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

Unremarkable family. Unfortunately no CSD tag covers it; maybe we should just have a "patently non-notable, but no precise category" tag. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. It belongs to
    WP:CSD#A7. Dekisugi (talk) 09:17, 1 December 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 under criteria

friendly) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Kieran's Broadcasting Company (KBC)

AfDs for this article:
Kieran's Broadcasting Company (KBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article - Channel 360 on Sky is 4music. Reference provided does not even list the channel Blowdart | talk 09:08, 1 December 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 vandalism. The ultimate giveaway is that the article is written as if 2009 was in the past, and Grutness is also on target. I see no reason to waste anymore time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central NZ United Gust FC

Central NZ United Gust FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy on this because I know jack about football. Apparently this article is a

hoax. We can delete it here or any admin who knows about this mysterious sport played in places that aren't America can speedy this as blatant misinformation. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 1 December 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 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Clemo

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

I declined this speedy deletion candidate and chose to nominate it here instead. This appears to be a biography of an individual who does not meet our guidelines for inclusion (

the general notability guideline). It does not appear as though he is the source of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 1 December 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. (

neuro(talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Jessica Rodriguez

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

This is a biography of a person, notable for only one thing, supposed friendship and Scientology "handler" of Katie Holmes. There are three references used on the page, one is a dead link, one is a FoxNews "slam piece" about Holmes being a zombie, and the third is an anti-Scientology website. In the external links, bare mention of Rodriguez is made, just more of the same "friend" or "minder". I can't see why this person would warrant a separate article, since I haven't been able to find continued mention of her in this only partially notable position in the past 3 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per the

MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

DALnet and other IRC network articles

DALnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Undernet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RusNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SlashNET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QuakeNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IRCnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GameSurge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EFnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating all IRC network articles for deletion, except for

OFTC which have non-trivial sources. I do not dispute that the largest IRC networks are more notable than the smaller ones, nor do I dispute that some of them have long and interesting histories for IRC users, and I am a big fan of IRC myself (I use many of these nets). However, all of these articles lack the reliable secondary sources necessary to put together a encyclopedia-quality article. At best someone might find some uninformed article in a newspaper, or a "...for Dummies" book that provides a stub-style description; such a description would likely belong on the main IRC article. Out of my concern for the quality of an article produced entirely by non-reliable Internet sources I ask for these deletions. Shii (tock) 06:33, 1 December 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. Certainly no consensus for deletion; possibly an editorial merger solution can be found.  Sandstein  23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koyambedu junction

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

Road junctions are not the type of thing we cover in Wikipedia. Google news search doesn't reveal much [42] and [43]. already covered in Koyambedu. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Koyambedu. We need to be wary of having too many articles on road junctions. They would need to be exceptionally notable to qualify for includion in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 4 December 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

List of Fate/stay night characters. As is usual with these closes, I will add the afdm tag to the articles, and then check them again in a few weeks. Any that have not been merged will then be redirected. Black Kite 16:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

True Assassin

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

First off I will state that yes, this is a very large nomination. However all the articles share the same issue: they have all existed very long term in this state with *no* improvement whatsoever, and no effort to push for notability. Upon research, sources have only turned up for a few of the characters alone, and they are excluded from this nomination. Salvageable information can be combined into a list, however given the number of merge targets any such proposal is best handled here than via singular articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per nomation, suggesting the following also be deleted:

Assassin_(Fate/stay_night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2nd nomination
)
Assassin (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Avenger (Fate/hollow ataraxia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Berserker (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Caster (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Caster (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Lancer (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Rider (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Rider (Fate/Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Saber (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The points brought up for Saber are suitable. Retracting her article from the AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Per sephiroth bcr. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Kudos to nom for being reasonable on withdrawing Saber, the remainder are not notable enough for separate articles. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all versions of
    WP:FICT, nominator's suggestion, and consensus that this is the best way to handle individually non-notable elements of a notable franchise. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, as the characters are from a fairly well-known series of games as well as an anime series released domestically in the US. However, I'll vote Merge as long as the information is indeed MERGED, not merely deleted and the names redirected. Nezu Chiza (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the individual entries on
    received significant coverage by sources independent of the works, or those producing the works. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge as suggested. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The majority of each of the pages are cruft, and they seem to be succinctly covered in the list article. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Seems a lot of people are under the impression this is from "a" video game. The series reuses the same main charactors in many diffrent media forms, from the first game, it's sequal, the anime series, manga, and light novel, and even an upcomming fighter game released by Capcom.
    That's not the concern here though. These characters are not supported by notability as defined by Wikipedia, which says there need to be reliable secondary sources to establish that these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Without those sources, it's generally agreed that, if they are part of a long running series, or one that is supported by other media, it's best to merge them to a list and then redirect. As these articles don't have reliable sources, it would seem best to upmerge them. I'm not sure if you're confused on some point or if there's another issue at hand, or something else. --Izno (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was implying people were looking in the wrong places for reliable sources; just as game info. There's a lot of info on each of these pages that would have to be condenced if merged, or you would have some very long pages. I'm not one to bother looking for other sources mind you ;), but I'm just saying I don't think people were looking for the sources in the right areas, since there's so many diffrent forms of media these cover. If there was any merging, then all the classes should at least be kept seperate, with True Assassin being plased in with assassin.
    You're being a bit hypocritical when you say "[...]people were looking in the wrong places for reliable sources;[...]" followed by "I'm not one to bother looking for other sources [...]". From what I can tell, the onus is on those who wish to keep articles like these to provide the sources, while it is merely being polite for everyone !voting to delete or merge to assemble sources for you (plural). As for what could be kept separate, again, the choice isn't defined by us, but by what the reliable sources cover. If there's nothing out there to support independent articles, everything gets merged or deleted if that is what consensus comes up with. As for condensing, I don't see anything worth merging either, which is why I !voted to straight up redirect. You may feel free to keep your keep !vote, but there is little to back it up from what I can see. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mege all as suggested. McWomble (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per
    WP:WAF guidelines. Almost nothing to merge. Small amount of referenced out-of-universe material (voice actors, etc) can be easily included in the parent article/s. Marasmusine (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    One cannot [[Wikipedia:Merge and delete|merge and delete' at the same time. It's either one or the other, or we combine the page histories in the target articles. The latter takes too much time (imo), so that's why the articles should be straight redirects if you're going to say "include some of the info in the parent articles". --Izno (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MuZemike (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • —
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
  • "Strength: A. Agility: B. Wisdom: C," etc, in every article. That is certainly game guide material.
    MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"On principle"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All to
    List of Fate/stay night characters. Characters do not seem to have independent notability out of the series that they appear in, no third party coverage in reliable sources, etc. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Merge to
    original research? I mean it IS pretty verifiable... just play the game. If I am wrong about anything feel free to correct me, I just don't want to see useful or relevent information being lost without good reason.Firelordozaie (talk) 05:04, 7 December 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; nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shadow of a Thousand Suns

In the Shadow of a Thousand Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Non-notable album by non-notable band. Fails

WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:09, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Market Post Tower

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

office building known among Silicon Valley networking geeks but fails

WP:RS, article remains orphan after 2-1/2 years. Ikluft (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Incorrect. Buildings are not organizations (neither are cars nor sandwiches). They are just material objects; some aspire to be art, some not.
NVO (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In a sense, this building is an organization. That's why I think it's notable. It's an important part of CGW's telecom infrastructure business. It's value as such is why they bought it. As a simple building, it's profoundly un-notable, unless you consider tacky overuse of gold film to be notable! Isaac R (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also under its common name Gold Building, it has many more articles about it. [53] --Oakshade (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD has promoted some development of the article. I want to reiterate to the folks who are adding to it not to take this AfD personally. If you want to save the article, improving it is certainly the right way to go about it. I need to point out though that the 1980s newsbank links and an Australian article which mentions but is not specifically about the tower are probably too weak to keep it afloat - I'm not convinced to change any positions stated here before the recent additions to the page. If I had found better sources, I would have added them rather than doing the AfD nom. So good luck. Ikluft (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ikluft, your desire to delete this article is appearing a classic case of
Notability is not temporary clause, you need to make your case at the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, not try to push your agenda in a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oakshade, let's not get into personal stuff. I think Ikluft's arguments are decently thought out, even though I don't agree with them (and he wants to delete my article!). Isaac R (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, let's not get personal. The refs that were added are too weak for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I have plenty of friends with connections to the place. It just doesn't have what it takes to be listed by WP rules... unless better sources turn up. Ikluft (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Trivial" is defined by
    WP:NOTABILITY you need to make your case on that page's talk page, not claim sources found on an individual article are trivial which is purely your opinion but opposite of reality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Disclosure: original creator of article, though I haven't edited it in a long time.) This building is notable for one single reason: it's a small but significant part of the U.S. telecom infrastructure. The way it evolved into that role after being designed as a mixed retail-office venue is of interest, as is its role as part of the Carlyle Groups larger telecom enterprises. Isaac R (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements to the article which clearly demonstrate
    notability. —BradV 17:02, 2 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havaldar Gajender Singh

Please keep hi profile..if you could keep a terrorist overhere why can't you keep a brave soldier..shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.17.86 (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. The only notable item mentioned in this bio is dying in the

November 2008 Mumbai attacks while fighting terrorists. Rawr (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Please do not mistake notability for honorability. --Alan Au (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is not even 'that' notable. He is not the head or an important person in any of the terrorist organizations. He is of importance only in regard to
    this article. WP should not find (and hopefully is not finding) terrorists "more deserving" --Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep He is honored already and the importance of person should be measured by the importance of his actions not length of time. The WP guidelines should not be used to selectively remove certain articles and ignore others. Gajendra Singh is important in Indian context. Just as some people of the Mumbai attacks are important in the context of other countries Israel, USA and others. Selectively bringing Afd also amount to POV because ones is suppressing certain article and letting others be. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above two "Keep" nominations do not have any regard to the WP policies and guidelines, they are just emotive rhetoric. "Importance" in a country's context does not necessarily make them notable. As has already been mentioned numerous this, this person fails
    WP:POV - if other articles are similar to this, they, too should be nominated for deletion. Would you care to provide examples? Johnson8776 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 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 Maxim(talk) 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Mark

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Has not played at the highest level of play, or any professional level. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:12, 1 December 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 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanceys

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

I am sending this to AFD for some consensus. This location does exist, and it even has had its moments in the sun in the years prior to the creation of

WP:OUTCOMES says. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

If it was a populated place in the past (enough to be included on official maps), either it's yet a community today, or it was and now isn't a community — thus making it a ghost town. If you can convince the GNIS (there is a way to contact them if you believe you can prove that it wasn't and isn't a populated place) that it's not a populated place, the strongest argument to keep this place falls; but as the GNIS, a highly reliable source that's part of the USGS, sees this as a populated place, I don't see why we should tell the USA's central mapping authority that it's wrong. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'm not convinced. I went looking for some examples of similar locations that might also be labeled as "populated place" by GNIS, and I found one. Pahaska Tepee was William "Buffalo Bill" Cody's hunting lodge near the eastern entrance of Yellowstone Park. It is, and has always been, just the lodge - there might be a few caretakers or staff that live nearby these days, but it would be difficult to argue that it was a "community" by any standards. Yet, the GNIS calls it a populated place. I think the most telling part is the citation for both Yancey's and Pahaska Tepee, if I may quote from the GNIS: Collected during Phase I data compilation (1976-1981), primarily from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps (or 1:25K, Puerto Rico 1:20K), various edition dates, and from U.S. Board on Geographic Names files.. I think this is how we got to where we are - the name existed in some prominence in the past, and the name was absorbed when the GNIS got organized. So the question is - in Wikipedia's eyes, what makes a populated place a community, and what makes a community notable enough? Does a ranch count as a populated place? How about a homesteader's cabin? I don't think they are notable, just for existing, but I would be happy to be told I'm wrong. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:37, 2 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Chinese and United States governments

Comparison of Chinese and United States governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a proper topic for an encyclopedia. There are about 200 nations in the world. If we compared the government of each one to each other one that would be 40,000 articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it would only be 20,000 articles. Matchups 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 x 2 = 4, 100 x 100 = 10,000, 10,000 x 4 = 40,000. That's how I figure these kind of things out. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That is one impressive piece of
    DARTH PANDAduel 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Comparison of Russian and United States governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business research

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

Seems like

DARTH PANDAduel 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as just someone's school paper. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pure
    bollocks from start to finish: Business communicators face daily challenges that require data collection, idea gene ration, and concept organization. These activities are part of the second phase of the writing process, which includes researching, organizing and composing . . . Then you organize the ideas into sub clusters shown in Figure 6.2. This set of sub clusters could form the basis for an outline. Or you could make another set of sub clusters, further outlining the categories. The reference to "Figure 6.2", not supplied, makes me suspect that this is a copyvio of some sort, likely copied from a book rather than from a website, in which case this should be speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete —
    MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 2 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelhurst Regional Gallery and Arts Centre

Hazelhurst Regional Gallery and Arts Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:ORG. no real evidence of notability. Google news search indicates hardly any third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No multiple, independent reliable sources to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy to me and I'll clean up when I have time there are some book mentions and enough about its exhibits form which to write a sourced article. It needs to be cleaned up but I'm busy with work and about to head off on holidays. I won't be here when this closes so if it closes as delete, I ask the closer to please userfy to me and leave me a note and I'll work on it un userspace. StarM 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - satisfies guidelines outlined at ORG. Reliables sources give references to major exhibitions by notable artists, it is listed on international directories to important galleries, and has a nationally recognised profile as the region's Arts centre. Notability is easily established by the sites linked by google, the engines 'results' of "hardly any" is an erroneous and insufficient basis for an AfD. cygnis insignis 08:59, 2 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musiconradio.com

Musiconradio.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music-related web site. Off-key in regard to

talk) 02:53, 1 December 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. A2, copy of material in foreign language that is available on other wiki. Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

بهرام آباد (رودبار شهرستان قزوین )

بهرام آباد (رودبار شهرستان قزوین ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been deprodded by a regular editor on the grounds that it could use a little more time. After being tagged for translation at

WP:PNT, it remained untouched for the normal two weeks, though in the mean time it has been successfully transwikied to the Farsi Wikipedia. But here in the English Wikipedia, given the fact there has been no progress whatsoever in the translation for more than two weeks, I had to prod it. It's been deprodded at the last minute. Given that the text is now part of the Farsi Wikipedia, where it can be retrieved for an eventual translation, and given that in three weeks we could have expected to get at least a stub, I say delete without prejudice against recreation in a language that resembles English.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:14, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994

Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List is no longer necessary as the

List of Famicom games
can be sorted by date if needed. List contains the same information found in the List of Famicom games with the exception of the Japanese text in which I do not think is necessary to include in the big list.

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

MuZemike (talk) 01:55, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roberson

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

Notability is questionable. Brougham96 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Saga: The Winged Odyssey

Angel Saga: The Winged Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No record of this novel could be found on worldcat.org, no reliable sources could be located to allow the novel to pass

WP:BK. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:18, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Hans Schöner

Gregor Hans Schöner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently this guy ran a failed dotcom from 1999 to 2001. Who among us didn't, really? I don't think that's sufficient to establish notability. Also, of the three sources in the article, none are about the subject of the article and only one even mentions him by name. Newsaholic (talk) 00:53, 1 December 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 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mastrilli

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

Speedy was declined. This person is only notable for one event. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- a quick Google search yields pages and pages of results. Now, I'm not an expert in Catholic or Jesuit history so I can't judge which of these sources are reliable and independent (though this one and this one look promising). It does appear as though Mastrilli is noted for more than his unfortunate death. Reyk YO! 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if only on the base of Reyk's findings (nice findings, Reyk!). First of all, martyrs are sort of by definition known for only one thing (dying); the rest of their notability must come from their afterlife. Many saints aren't even historical, esp. the early Roman saints. Second, this guy is memorialized in a few books (and Reyk, your second reference is really wild; besides, notability for his 'ridiculous impostures' could conceivably be established), and that's enough for me. Besides, he's also mentioned in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia ("Novena"); I'll add that reference to the article. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I've done a bit of work on the article (thanks again, Reyk), and took the liberty to remove a couple of the tags. (Notability, for instance: I believe the person is notable.) Drmies (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Reyk YO! 04:22, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Eli

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

Article is not yet warranted per the

WP:FUTFILM. No issue with recreation if it can be reliably sourced that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm,
    WP:GNG; that won't do at all I'm afraid. Notability is not time-sensitive, and the success or failure of the topic is completely independent of whether or not there has been sufficient coverage of it in reliable sources. So long as there is a neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic article to be written on the topic, we have no business deleting it. Keep unless a compelling, policy-based rationale for deletion is forthcoming. the skomorokh 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • To follow up, the most suitable policy-based rationale is
    WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." So mention of this project could be mentioned at the directors' article. Furthermore, it says that announcements are not sufficient basis for starting an article, and the current article seems based on announcements. Here's an example of an announcement-based article that wouldn't be in the mainspace: User:Erik/Isobar (film). Some rustling about it, but nothing ever happened. Hope you understand what I mean by all this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:47, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Posey

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

This article should be deleted per

WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fool proof campaign

Fool proof campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school project with no sourcing. Entirely original research. Newsaholic (talk) 00:33, 1 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore is the daughter of

WP:NOTE; just because her parents are notable does not mean she is. NSR77 T 00:27, 1 December 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. either way (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Harris

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus. MBisanz talk 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Roman Catholic Church in Marion, Ohio

St. Mary Roman Catholic Church in Marion, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

There's nothing to set apart this parish church, so it fails

WP:N. The fact that it's the only Roman Catholic church in Marion, OH doesn't count: Marion is rather small at 35,000 people, and may well be more Protestant than Catholic. Biruitorul Talk 00:05, 1 December 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

WP:SNOWBALL as blatant soapboxing; no valid arguments for retention. Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

History of human sanctity

History of human sanctity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article purports to be a history of a topic that does not itself have an article: there is no

talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Contrary to the bitterly biased view above, the point of the article is to allow for more in-depth development on the historical side of the
beginning of human life article, which wont fit there, because that article deals with the contemporary issue. -Zahd (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The article gives about half anti-abortion opinions and about half that would permit abortion in some cases. I don't see how it is a soapbox. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the purpose of this article is to deal with the historical aspects of the
beginning of human life, it has the wrong title! Not to mention the wrong text... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History of abortion already seems to contain most of the information in this one, just from a quick glance. Another reason to delete this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. It's a nice POV touch how he has the word "protected" easter-egged to
    sacred. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:44, 1 December 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 speedily deleted A7, G11 after recreation. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBeatYou

A minor video hosting site, where people challenge each other. The creator of the article is claiming it's notable, since Jessica Alba and two basketballers posted here, but Google News Archives doesn't seem to have anything too recent about the site, showing it's only a blip. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:39, 1 December 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. ^ Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#.233:_Availability_of_real_world_perspective
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_1&oldid=1081103238"