Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

Guide to deletion

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. John254 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Garth School

)

Article deprodded with little improvement. Notabilty in and of itself is not established and the new ref is minor and relates to the incident, not the school. Only the town links there. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How doesn't the 1994 intrusion and classroom killing not relate to the school? A Google News search indicates that the incident shocked the UK, got worldwide coverage, and cast a long shadow over the school for years. It may not be Columbine, but the school and its issues plenty of
WP:RS coverage. High schools tend to be notable. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The Hall Garth stabbing is very notable. School stabbings in the UK are very rare, especially multiple random stabbings with no apparent motive. As Gene93k said, this shocked the UK. I was about 9 years old when this happened,and had no interest in the news, but I remember it vividly. The stabbing also had implications for other schools, including mine, which increased security. Andrew Duffell (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have an article on the stabbing then, if had so much impact. Andrew, as you created the page, added the info, and removed the prod, It would really be helpful if you added an infobox or some other useful information. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - apart from the stabbing plenty of news items here including a notable anti-bullying initiative.
talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - notable incident even if it was before the majority of news sources were online and/or archived. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we usually consider schools notable anyway. The incident just adds to that. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TerriersFan's improvements. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--

talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Connor S. Kidd

Not sure that it meets

WP:BLP CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete although I am glad that this page has referances that work, but beeing interviewed for a 1 paragraph blerb in Forbs, a single local article, and having a myspace dosn't qualify for notablility.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though its the lead paragraph in Forbes, its there fore human interest, specifically as something trivial that illustrates a general phenomenon, not for notability. DGG (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are a few sources, and if more extensive sources could be provided, I may be willing to change my mind. However, the level of coverage in the sources currently in the article seems to be trivial at this point.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with DGG. The kid isn't notable in his own right, he was used as an example to illustrate a general topic. The paragraph he gots was a typical human interest story, thousands of which get printed every day in the papers ETC. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:David Eppstein. Wizardman 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph William Thomas

Does not follow

WP:NPOV for biographies §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete. Article is utter nonsense. OlenWhitaker 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as tagged. Why is there an AfD at all? scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

^"talk" 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Operation Boot Camp

Page reads just like an advertisement complete with a section explaining its franchise options. Thinly vailed

Spam advertisement. Major contributers are several Single purpose accounts and IP adresses (single purpose as well). Coffeepusher (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Notable, and there is a recent / ongoing effort to fix the POV in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.197.198 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has references asserting notability although it could do with being cleaned up. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Just barely notable. Annamonckton (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 World cinema -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign film

)

The article world cinema itself notes that both terms are interchangeable. This article is vague (what exactly counts as "foreign"?), and much of it seems to be used simply to defend foreign films themselves ("French films have been at the fore front of innovation and experimentation since film's inception"). Finally, the world cinema article is quite detailed and already covers the term "foreign film" much more thoroughly than this article. DearPrudence (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frag Well elucidated. World cinema is the better choice to settle these redundancies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Holy schnitzel, movies are made in places other than Hollywood?! </sarcasm> Redirect to world cinema, I suppose - "foreign film" is a relative term, anyways. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. "Foreign film" is a very relative term, and the other article already has this subject covered. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Thanks for the laugh, Zetawoof! Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I aim to amuse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless title. Every film is a foreign film to most people, and there's no content here worth merging anywhere.
Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.--

talk) 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online RPG

Was previously deleted at

WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A quick search turned up no
WP:RS and considering this has gone through the ringer so many times I'm inclined to salt.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, this topic is going to need better sources than a blog on blogspot. --Pixelface (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Torchwoodwho Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hand in the bush

)

While the book itself might be notable, this article is unsalvageable; it's a book review written in the first person, which seems to not have been noticed when an editor removed the prod I placed on this article. If it can be rewritten from scratch, that would be okay, but the article right now needs to go. ~~JuJube (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~ The article was redone to remove the first-person review and instead is now a somewhat empty article that still contains a strong claim of notability. I'd invite people to review their votes. JuJube (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing under slight protest. JuJube (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen a whole article in first person before. The source doesn't seem to mention the book at all, and there's no page on the author herself. I'm sure that this book can be a handy reference, but as it stands, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any in depth coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be ~~stretched out~~ expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...especially the part about in depth coverage. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new version of the article cites a reference and sticks to the basic facts. I would say it now meets the criteria for a proper stub article. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like we've all got dirty minds. The article was apparently intended to be funny: "problems with the book involve that it's a lot of fluff"; "seems to lack any real hard information"; "long-term considerations don't enter into it"; "this act can be about trust and love and all those gooey things"; oh yeah, and "in depth" snicker snicker Mandsford (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reliable source for this before the nom brought this to AfD, and, as I pointed out in my edit summary, again before the AfD nomination, there are more reliable sources at Google books which show notability. The nominator doesn't give any valid deletion rationale - the only complaints seem to be about content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than about whether an article should exist on this subject.
Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — If you agree that the book itself is a legitimate subject, but your only problem is with the way it's written, why are you so hasty to delete? Instead of doing the lazy thing and destroying someone's hard work, why not rewrite it yourself? Or if you don't know anything about it, tag it for a rewrite and let someone else do it--or perhaps learn enough about it yourself to be able to do a good rewrite, expanding your own knowledge in the process? I fail to see how deleting this is going to help the project. And shouldn't that be our criteria--not following a bunch of bureaucratic rules, but rather doing what helps the project? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubbing a first-person review full of silly innuendo someone else's hard work is laughable. It would have been better to delete the article and start over and get the silly crap out of history, but apparently anyone that actually wants to delete an article is a "bureaucrat". In any case, I've invited people to review the article and will most likely withdraw this nom, but I still think it should have been deleted and that actual authors more familiar with the subject should have taken a crack at it, but apparently keeping the history of idiot vandals is more important than writing an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all Wikipedia articles have been vandalized, do you want us to delete them all and undelete the unvandalized versions? By the way, qualifying user:Overpowered of vandal is a bit overstated. There is a difference between adding "unencyclopedic" content and vandalizing. Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the Guardian source.Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a stub at the most, and has very little if any reason to be hosted by Wikipedia. Consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: it has book art, release dates, publisher/genre information, even a picture. It is on its way of becoming a B-class article. This stub, though, contains too little information to be kept on Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC
I suggest that you familiarize with our
stubs, this is not a valid reason for deletion [1].Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, Alex, and if you don't follow that friendly suggestion.... Seriously, though, it's probably just as well that this article doesn't have pictures. Some things are best left to the imagination. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, your comment indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with how wikis are supposed to work. People shouldn't be exepcted to create a moderate-length article right off the bat. Rather, the whole point of a wiki is collaborative editing by the community, which means the article starts out with just a little stub--but you keep it there, so as people stop by they can add their own bit of information to it, so that the article grows organically over time. Deleting stubs would make that process--which is an inherent part of a wiki--impossible. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Invasion Comedy

This article, about an apparently straight-to-DVD comedy video, was created in the wake of a number of attempts (one, two & three) to insert the link to the official site into unrelated articles. While the number of Google hits on the title is initially impressive, it's difficult to find ones which aren't in some way promotional or which could be viewed as significant coverage (professional reviews etc). Most telling is the fact that Google News doesn't yield a single review or announcement of this DVD's release. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of DVDs; nor is it a home for that which lacks significant, independent coverage. Sturm 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is written slightly in an advertising tone but it passes on
WP:V (IMDB reference). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

An IMDB entry doesn't, on its own, assert notability. See David's Demon or Green Arrow Fan Film. --Sturm 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tagged for speedy. It is a cut and paste from a clearly marked copyrighted site as provided here [2]. Shoessss | Chat 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have restored the article and reopened the debate. If you look at the page http://www.indianinvasioncomedy.com/clips.htm, the DVD description and comedian biographies are released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence and can be freely used in Wikipedia, hence it is not a copyright violation. One may, however, have their suspicions about the GFDL being for promotional purposes, but to delete as a copyvio is against the proper process. --Canley (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Man, I got to get new glasses. I should have never missed that one. Thanks for the catch Canley Sorry. Shoessss | Chat 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for breaking any rules of article creation and linking. I created the original article because I just bought the DVD and am a fan. I have plans to expand it by adding more details about Indian comedy, not just this show. This show is notable because it's the only US show featuring Indian comedians, other than Russell Peters.

I didn't make all of those links mentioned above, but I did link to Margaret Cho and Chris Rock because one of the comedians was a co-host on a TV show with Margaret, and the other has opened for and is good friends Chris Rock (as mentioned in their bios).

Regarding the bios, I asked for permission from the site owner, that is why he added the GNU text at the bottom of the page. I was planning to change and expand those later.

My understanding is that the show will be broadcast in the summer on PPV, and then on MTV India in the fall. If the article belongs in a different category, I'll put it there.

As for press coverage, it hasn't received coverage from big media, but it has been covered by Indian media: AVSTV (a US based nationally syndicated TV show), India Today (US based nationally distributed newspaper), Mehfil Magazine (Canadian Magazine), and a few others. It'll also be the feature story in Anokhi Magazine, a US based Indian entertainment magazine.

Sorry for breaking any rules. Please let me know what the decision is so I don't spend more time on editing. Grassvalley (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was also featured on Imaginasian TV. Grassvalley (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may never become a featured article, but it appears to be notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far all the notability I can see here is inherited. Most of the actors were co-hosts, are friends with famous people, or have been on reality shows and the like. The DVD itself gets no notable Google hits. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — All these arguments about notability miss the point. Ultimately, "notability" is a purely arbitrary standard, and frankly I'm not sure why we should even care about it anyway. Isn't verifiable existence sufficient? Why does it have to meet some arbitrarily-defined and arbitrarily-judged "notability" to be worthy of inclusion? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no stand-alone notability. Fails
WP:N. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College

)

Notability concerns - I was only able to find trivial media coverage in

talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect. Until today, the article was a redirect to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. I don't believe a redirect of that type is unreasonable, and restored that redirect in lieu of a speedy delete earlier today. I concur with Addhoc, in that I can find few sources that confirm the organization's existance, with none proving notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In some parts, the article is pure spam. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence in its existence through the Sloan Foundation and also through Boston College - both credible resources. sbmorrison 11:22, 3, March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmorrison (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up - I would rather clean it up than delete it. Tagged as such. Not sure where to begin. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can't find much evidence of notability, so I agree with Ultraexactzz. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until outside sources are found. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but an outright deletion certainly would have no positive effect on the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been cleaned up and outside sources have been added to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osartor (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - some unhelpful comments by one editor. I did note Metropolitan's attempt at providing references but agree with the consensus that notability via third party reliable sources has not been adequately established. --VS ^talk 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Kalamity

non-notable play; doesn't have speedy cat; author removed prod without explanation; COI:author is writer of subject of article; fails to assert notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author: Any chance we can hold off deleting the article on Klondike Kalamity?Hi, I'm realatively new to Wikipedia, I have no wish to offend anyone by starting an article about our stageplay, but I am trying to gather more info to flesh the article out.
Would contributions from other sources help?
I see you have no true article on old-time melodrama comedies per se, but in that admittedly narrow genre, Klondike is very well known.
Thank you.
Aatragon (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Gary Peterson, co-author of Klondike Kalamity, 02-18-2008 copied to this page: 11:25, February 19, 2008 by Aatragon (talk · contribs)

What is "speedy cat"? 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Aatragon (talk · contribs)

Comment Plays are not under any obvious category for
deletion discussion process. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This may not be the most famous play around, but a Google News search indicates that it does receive productions up to present times. I would give it the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Metropolitan90 says this does get performed and there are a few Google News Archive hits, mainly listings. Notability generally requires more in-depth coverage. The original publication dates before the internet era, though, so there are probably offline sources. This barely passes the heard-of-it test, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless we can come up with some kind of
notability requirements. Surely the author ought to have some clippings from theater trade journals, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- There are no notability requirements. Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant? In fact, can anyone provide a concrete description of what it is, or is it just a way to get out of having to admit up front that you don't like it/don't know anything about it/aren't interested in it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orangemike. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we wait until someone can provide sources to have an article on this? Sources aren't EVER needed up front; they're only needed after the fact, if someone is questioning a claim made in the article--and a failure to provide sources in that case only means you remove the statement, not the entire article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See
    WP:V Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - (a) verifiability is not the same as sourcing (b) we're not bound by "policies" anyway. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It exists, doesn't it? We can verify its existence, can't we? Why should anything else matter, then? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
WP:EVERYTHING. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no evidence of
notability has been demonstrated in some three weeks of AFD listing, an exceptionally generous span. --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless notability can be established by means of
reliable sources. Deor (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted material. Contrary to what Travellingcari suggests, the new version was substantially identical to the previously deleted version. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Vlado Kotnik

This has been PRODed a couple of times, but there's still a lack of evidence that he passes

WP:PROF. In any language RS coverage is trivial and while the books exist, I don't see evidence that they're notable in the field TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ETA: I'd venture a guess that the previous AfD might be someone with the same name as I don't see academic work labeled as 'cruft. TRAVELLINGCARIMy story_{Tell me yours} 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The current lack of sources appears to be plausibly addressable and there's evidence that the band may meet

WP:V deficiencies. I will tag the article for sources & Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia with the hope that further work will abrogate any need for future deletion discussion. — Scientizzle 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Lobby (Eurodance band)

)

Contested prod. Notability still not asserted. Google search produces just 10 reliable google hits. Roleplayer (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have to note that it doesn't appear that they were popular outside of Slovakia. If they did release their albums on a major slovak label that would make them notable. But I don't know anything about Slovakian music. -Drdisque (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Lobby was one of (unfortunately only) 2 best dancefllor bands active in 1990s in Slovakia (2nd was band "D-Night"). It´s known in Slovakia, Czechia, Poland and Mexico. See e.g. Comments at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjoGBPAP8l0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqjfvXQMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTghfKM5sg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsP_hVlu_xU

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addams71 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Band may well be notable, but it doesn't do much good if no one here can find any sources in a language we speak. One of the videos listed above is of a performance in what looks to me to be a TV audience; this suggests to me notability. On the other hand, the view count for all of the videos listed are quite low. Is this another language issue? Possibly. Again, I recognize that the band may well be notable, but if no one here can prove it, it's gotta go. faithless (^speak) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Lobby's sk.wikipedia page was created same day by same author, Addams71; but perhaps that's because only now is anyone getting around to adding content on this genre over there? I'm on the fence about foreign artists with no English-language notoriety: on the one hand, I would personally love to see these articles in en.wikipedia, to offset our American/British bias. But on the other hand, perhaps sk.wikipedia (and cz. and pl. and es.wikipedia) is the only proper location, if those are the only languages where we will find any coverage of this group. At some point, en.wikipedia does probably have to ask "notable to whom?"; and as long as the band is covered in sk.wikipedia, the whole wikipedia project would still be doing a good job. Vote withheld for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination unfortunately appears to have systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this article would harm our coverage of Slovakian music.
talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The band may well be notable in Slovakia and perhaps even to the world at large but the article offers no proof of this. In fact, it offers no proof of anything at all as there are no sources whatever (YouTube videos are hardly proof of notability.) If appropriate references could be found in English (after all, this is English Wikipedia,) then perhaps it would meet
WP:N standards, then it would only need to have extensive cleanup, a rewrite by someone fluent in English, and the insertion of some actual information about the band (as opposed to a couple of dates, the names of the members and a track listing of their albums and nothing else.) If all that were done it might be up to scratch, but for now it doesn't come close. The subject matter might be worth an article, but, at present, I think this treatment is too far from meeting standards to be worth saving; hence: delete. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - finally made up my mind. Leaving notability discussions aside, no third-party proof of the group's existence has been given. Wikipedia needs all articles to have at least some basic sourcing, at least to prove to some future editor that the article is not a hoax. Even some references or footnotes in Slovak would give an editor familiar in the language an opportunity to check sources. I really don't like taking this position when the article was created the same day it was sent to AfD, but the creator has had 7 days to improve the article to beat the rap. Unfortunately, it fails
WP:V, so I vote delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. No
WP:MUSIC. Alas, I can't read it. It's very 13th hour, but I'll try to find a Slovakian editor on the English Wikipedia who may be able to help out. I think deletion would be well within guidelines. But I can't personally opine one way or another without trying that, merely to avoid the systemic bias that David Gerard mentions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I have asked for translation assistance here. I will update, if the AfD remains open. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—They pass
WP:MUSIC criterion #5, as they released two of their albums on Sony's Dance Pool label. I have added that information to the article just now. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. The editor I asked to translate kindly did so, and evidently the essence of that source is "It says it produced five albums (although here for example I see only four), and had a tour in Mexico, but in 2001 it had broken up. A former member has also said that Slovak radios stopped playing any dance music at the time of break-up and that they were several times nominated for various awards, but they have won none of them." (All this at the editor's talk page.) This would seem to be a reliable sourcing confirming an international tour. I don't know the notability of the awards. While Discogs is probably not a reliable source, given that they seem to accept any information "voted in", it does suggest that their releases are on a notable label. I can't defend it strongly, but I would believe that it could stand more time and hopefully if brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia may invite participation from editors who can find more and better sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW, nom's comment at bottom seems to indicate withdrawal. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Football League Cup Final

)

This is more or less a test AfD. Virtually every football match gets press, do we want to cover them all? Where do we draw the line? There are no sources now, but I'm sure they can be found with relative ease. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Confused nomination. Cup finals will have plenty of sources.
talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article can be greatly expanded, I only created it with such limited information because I am short on time, but I will add the relevant information in the future. Also there are numerous articles of this type on Wikipedia, some which are even at
FA standard NapHit (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and expand - as said above, it's the final of a major Cup tournament. As with FA Cup finals, the
Football League Cup finals should all have an article on WP. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep annual championship games/series of notable leagues are accepted as notable for American sports, seems only fair that the same would be true for notable leagues in other countries. If I'm understand the nom correctly, to delete here would set the precedent that no single sporting even/series is notable enough for a game... which would be a disaster, deleting articles like Super Bowl III or 2004 World Series. --Rividian (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, looks like it's snowing. As a general question, does WikiProject Football have notability guidelines for individual matches? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Valentine

I can find nothing about this band on the Web except another copy of this article (credited to Wikipedia). It is self-promotion: the page's creator, JerichoBoy, is a member of the putative band, Joseph Peter Currie. See Jericho (Rapper), JerichoBoy's only other contribution.

(Although I have been

using Wikipedia for years,
making occasional additions and corrections as my knowledge allows,
and the owner, for my job, of a wikimedia-based wiki,

I am not an administrator or very familiar with Wikipedia policies (except respect and no POV), much less procedures. I originally put the above comment on the talk page of the article.) (By the way, the link on Wikipedia:AFD labeled "Add a new entry" leads directly to editing the AfD page, with no guidance for newbies like me.)

Thnidu (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, utterly fails
WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. Article doesn't even pretend to be notable or to have sources/references. Obvious self-promotion. I dig the random exclamation mark in the middle of the 'current status' section, though.</sarcasm> OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page needs to be blanked and kept as a redirect to Saint Valentine. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. --

talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I third that. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Speedy Delete, so there is no need to run it through the deletion process as of
talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. Or just restore this diff. —
BradV 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

BradV 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - it makes no assertion of notability, so it meets the
WP:CSD. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is claim and counter-claim here, with people trying to be too pithy-one-sentence-clever and this reduces the signal information available to the closing admin. It strikes me clearly from reading the debate that this is viewed as original synthesis , and I do think that claim is largely justified, as there are various editorial excitements included in the text, such as "The town of Smallville survives its share of living hell as the U.S. Civil War erupts", as an arbitrary example. There is also a general view that this is excessively detailed for its subject material, is almost entirely in-universe and that it (demonstrably) is almost totally lacking in sources — effectively the three death-knells sounding from the complaints re

WP:PLOT. Also, I observe that, whilst we are not bound by 'precedent', an example is given of a topically similar article that was deleted last year on similar grounds. The clear-cut sway of the debate here is to delete and the challenges to the policy-based complaints are insufficient to persuade the deleters to change. Two side notes: (i) the injunction is now lifted and (ii) the relisting was an unnecessary burden to AfD when there was plenty of debate included prior to the relisting. Relisting is not the pursuit of a trivial decision for the closing admin, it is for the extension of a debate so thin that not even a 'no consensus' can be meaningfully determined. Splash - tk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Smallville timeline

There isn't a single source on the page, which also means there isn't one asserting

it's nothing more than plot information. A lot, if not most, of the information in this article is basic episode information covered on the season pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep I can't believe anybody actually spends timed writing (or reading) this, but it's no less strange or obsessive than many of the things on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead already says it is based in
WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No sources, just plot and original synthesis based on the plot. Jay32183 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOT, and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article). TJ Spyke 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. Probably better suited to a Smallville fansite, but at least it's somewhat useful to anyone new to the series who may look it up on Wikipedia to learn more about the show. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional articles must be based on the real world. Fictional timelines rarely, if ever, are written from a real world perspective. They are typically written from an in-universe perspective, which is not allowed for fictional topic articles. Regardless, if someone wants to know about Smallville, why aren't they looking at
  7. Smallville timeline is linked in one high traffic area, that's in the "Season overview" section of the main page. The only place that I can think of that it is linked in is the Smallville template at the bottom of every page. Without the knowledge that you'd gain by reading the season articles, this page doesn't make much sense, because it loosely ties particular episode elements together. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I consider this barred by the Arb Com injunction,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction], "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)."
This is an article dealing with video episodes, placing the plots on a timeline. I have discussed this with the nom on my talk page, and warned him about the injunction, though after he placed this nom. Having been warned, I ask him to withdraw this AfD. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the injunction talks about articles regarding television episodes and characters: this mentions them, but isn't about them. So, no actual justification, then? --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my line of thinking after I read the injunction, and why I didn't withdraw it afterward. This isn't about television episode articles, or character articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that sophistry, though well-intentioned. The wording of "articles regarding episodes and characters", would I think cover anything involving them in a more than incidental way--a biography of an actor or writer would not be covered, one about the plot or characters of themes would be. Thats what this is, though its organized as a timeline. Look at any of the years: it gives that part of the bio of the fictional characters or the general story. Before the injunction, articles like this were typically argued against for just this reason: they duplicated the coverage of the plots of the episodes. I cannot enforce my view on this, and, being involved in these discussion on one side, would not take action as an administrator in any event. But I shall ask at arbcom. I'll give the link.

I've asked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Apparent violation of injunction but I am not sure that was the right venue.DGG (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sophistry: there's the attempt at finely argued legalisms and searching for loopholes to avoid addressing the actual issues on the table, and the bog-standard questions regarding complete lack of sources, original research, and just plain triviality. Or are end-runs around the core policies at the heart of Wikipedia acceptable? --Calton | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before but I will repeat it for the sake repetition; I believe these types of AfD should continue on as normal, if the the result is delete/redirect/merge then this AfD should be tagged with Template:Fictwarn and the motion carried out once the injunction is over. I personally believe it is in the spirit of the injunction that this sort of stuff be included in the injunction but I'm not an arbcom member and I've heard it been said a few times that this sort of stuff is not strictly included in the injunction. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, original research, blah blah. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, viz sourcing and more importantly notability. Referencing arbcom's injunction in this instance of clearly unnotable content is casuistical. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Sin Harvest, it is also appropriate to discuss the actual issue in the meantime. So, Keep -- as an appropriate summary article. Then notability needs to belong only to the subject as a whole, which is Smallville; treating an aspect of it in a separate subarticle article is really an editorial decision on whether or not to split an article. The material is sourcable, since it all comes from the various comics, etc--agreed that it should be sourced explicitly, but it is certainly sourceable if one knows the material. It is not OR, for OR requires synthesis--the assemblage of facts open to plain view, without interpreting them, is not OR, but the way all WP articles are constructed. The addition of the publication dates for the various events will deal with any question about RW content, also. Keep and improve. Most articles of this type need improvement. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the OR claims refer to the time stamps, which is the basis of the article. I admit I don't know how Smallville works, but unless there are subtitles that say "Early 1840s" or "Late 1961", this article is originally researched (IMO). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also shouldn't be
    WP:NOT#PLOT. It is not simply an editorial decision to split an article into pieces that do not meet the inclusion criteria; that is not, nor has it have ever been, the intent of the summary style guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Well they are essentially contradicting policy/guidelines one says you should split the article when it gets too long while the other says you shouldn't have an article that is unable to assert notability on its own, so what happens when you have an article that has become too long yet the content can not assert its own notability after a split? --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That should generally never be an issue with plot information, because
        Wikipedia isn't one big plot summary. Information split from an article is typically real world information (if it's a fictional topic) and thus probably sourced by secondary sources to begin with. Articles must have more than just plot information. This page is nothing but plot information and some editors' original research tying information from select episodes (and some information that wasn't in the show at all) together as if that was the show's intention. I don't know what page one could say this needed to be split from, since any important plot information is covered on its respective season page. Anything else is just indiscriminate information from the show itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      - Just to clarify what this page is actually "summarizing", since DDG says it's "an appropriate summary article". Starting from the beginning, the "Na-Man" story only consisted of about two episodes of the show. Countess Theroux was a side-story arc that lasted for most of season four, but ended with season four. The Dailey Planet bit is rather random. The building itself was only recently significant in the show's history, and the statement in this article about it being founded in 1775 is based purely on the comics (no relation to this television show). Ezra Small is someone that was only developed on one of the WB's viral sites, and has rarely - if ever - been mentioned on the show. Then we start getting this birth dates for characters in the show, yet birthdays have never really been discussed. They'd have birthdays on the show, but the actual date has never really been stated. It's original research to assume that the day the show airs is the day the fictional universe takes place in. You might be able to deduce years, but any more specific and you're stretching. It's even incorporating random recurring characters in the mix. Why not all characters that appear on the show? How is "Mid November, 2006: Raya visits Clark, and together they fight Baern, Raya dies battling Baern." an appropriate summary of the show? The seasons themselves are already summarized on the main page, and then the season pages break down each individual episode. This page not only has no feasible structure about what it chooses recall for the reader, but it's about 90% redundant to what is already in place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a list sub-article. I say we let the Smallville Wikiproject fix it up. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. There isn't one, and I'm basically the most active editor for these pages. This page right here is run by anons. Regardless, still blatantly fails

WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no reason to split this stuff off originally, and I've already explained how most of the stuff on the page is hardly even notable in the series itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Blatant violation of
WP:NOR, as the lead section openly admits. I don't think timelines for fictional universes are generally suitable for Wikipedia, and this one certainly fails policy. Maybe move it to the Smallville wikia if it isn't already there? Paul 730 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one person is the only major editor for the related articles, then perhaps it shows that others need to edit also. It's OWNership to decide by oneself on how to organise things, and try to delete the pages that do it differently. One person may not feel a particular arrangement useful. I find it helps the understanding of the material, though those more familiar find the more detailed accounts sufficient. Another example of how parts of the encyclopedia without sufficient general attention can be unrepresentative of encyclopedic needs. DGG (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page statistics. There isn't really anyone that stands out. One editor with 18 edits, and another with 6, then it starts trickly down to just single edits. The editor with 18 edits hasn't visited the page since March 2007. If you took out all the OR, there isn't much left that isn't already stated elsewhere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, non-notable, useless, fancrufty - one of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot. That said, these sort of "timelines", like the
synthesis of primary source materials. --Phirazo 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete 100% per reasoning of the nominator. —
=/\= | 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smallville on Wikipedia's most active contributor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coherent, well-organized, discriminate, verifiable sub-article. Best, --
Tally-ho! 17:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --
        Tally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        That's what this AfD will do. Regardless, I've already explained how this "timeline" loosely ties events that barely had anything to do with one another on the show itself. Just because it happens in the show doesn't make it relevant to the show's fictional timeline. If John Doe appears on the show, then John Doe's personal history is not relevant to this timeline. Heck, the first section ties the person that left the information in the caves, with the person that left the crystals, when at no point in the show did they ever say they were one in the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite undoubted sincerity and good faith of nomination, anyone who nominates something knowingly in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie evidence of judgement so awful as to suggest deleting all nominations from this nominator, to avoid wasting precious AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I nominated it before I knew what the injunction was, and how "strict" it was regarding merging, deleting or anything to do with fiction related articles. So, "keeping" an article just because you disagree with my AfD'ing something fiction when there was an injunction in place (one, again I add, that I wasn't aware of in its entirety, having not read the ArbCom till after I AfD'd this article) is rather immature. You're basically making you opinion to keep the article, not on the article's merit of deletion, but rather on your opinion that I should not AfD any fiction related article to begin with. Just to point out, DGG did ask if this timeline was covered by the injunction, and the only two people to respond to him agreed that it was not covered by the injunction. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, there is no such thing as "wasting AfD time". If something doesn't have a
  snow ball's chance in hell of being deleted (i.e. the AfD was made in extreme bad faith) then that is evident from the start and the AfD can be quickly closed. If the AfD has merit (and the numerous deletion votes suggests that this does, regardless of the fact that any outcome won't be put into action until the injunction is removed), then you cannot "waste time" reviewing the article. It is YOUR decision to review an article based on the concerns of the nominating editor. If you feel your time was "wasted" reading it, that's an opinion and probably would weigh on your decision to support a deletion of the article. Given that AfD is a community based decision process, and not part of some systematic program that would require "time well spent", there is nothing to waste. You cannot even claim that it is a waste of time for the Admin closing the AfD to read all that is being discussed, because there is a big banner at the top of this page that says whatever the outcome, the page cannot be deleted/merged/etc etc until the injunction is over. So, the "closing" Admin can simply walk away from the article, or come give their own opinion. The only positive thing about this AfD existing in the face of the injunction is the extended time it gets to find more neutral opinions about the article's existence, and thus achieving a more clear consensus about the outcome. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Tally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --
        Tally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Do you think that I sit here all day trying to delete articles? I've turn 3 television articles into Featured Articles. I've turned a fictional character into a featured article. I've been working my Wiki butt off to develop several other articles, so please don't flash that sanctimonious attitude at me. I put in my time in developing articles, and when I find articles that I truly believe do not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, then I do what I must to see that it is rectified, in some way shape for form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Then I encourage you to focus more on helping to improve and expand other articles rather than attempting to diminish other editors' contributions and efforts. Best, --
        Tally-ho! 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Sorry, but I improve and expand more articles than you could possibly imagine. I do my part, trust me. How about you realize that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan house where we should have an article on every single minute piece of information in the world (regardless of how notable or important it is anywhere). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Five pillars, we are an encyclopeia AND a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. We are NOT paper. Our founder said we are trying to provide the sum total of human knowledge. If it is important or notable anywhere and is factually accurate there is no reasonable or non-elitist rationale not to have an article on it. We should not discriminate against our contirbutors and readers. Especially because people donate money to Wikipedia. Thus, we should tolerant with articles we don't particularly personally care for. Time is much better spent improving and building articles we do care about than attempting to diminish other editors and readers' experiences on our project. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow the Smallville wiki project to decide how best this information should be presented.
talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A quote from above: "There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor." – sgeureka ^t•c 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's wait until this Thursday's episode when (I'm NOT making this up, check the TV listings) Pete Ross (Sam Jones III) returns to the show and gets superpowers after using kryptonite chewing gum.... history in the making? Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being serious, or just trying to lighten the mood? That episode will have nothing to do with this timeline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to lighten the mood. I'm gathering that I'm mistaken about this being a new episode, so people have already seen it and factored it in. Once the new, post-strike episodes begin, then of course every new chapter adds to the continuity that the viewers have been following since 2001. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the information is handled in the Smallville episode by seasons articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tommorrow per nom. The injunction will be vacated by then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --
      Tally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - First off,
        Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        I have seen statements outright made in the ArbCom to the effect of not liking or knowing about these sorts of articles and that alone being the rationale for wanting them deleted, i.e. regardless of the article's merits. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but in order to have consensus we cannot exclude editors willing to write or interested in reading articles they deem encyclopedic just because any of disagree. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, it is more likely than not consistent with either a general or specialized encyclopedia and the problems identified usually fall under
        Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

The article has almost no traffic as far as editing is concerned, there has been approximately 100 edits to the page since its inception (with the leading editor at 18 edits not having edited the article for over a year). Ignoring how many people have edited the page, lets do a simple traffic test. The timeline has had about 5000 hits. By comparison, Smallville (TV series) has about 264,000 hits. Regardless of traffic, there isn't a policy that says "if people creat an article for it, and it isn't copyvio then it should stay". This page is a clear violation of
WP:PLOT. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Have you read
    WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even
    WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read
    WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    While I am still far from persuaded that the article should not be kept, I agree that we are indeed using time up that could be better spent improving articles. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZHLT

Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the talk page, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Lots of fourm posts, and trivial sources, but nothing meets
WP:RS. --Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- weak delete following changes bellow, I'd be happy to change to keep if a source could be found. I did try some google searches but I only found a good number of blog posts. --Salix alba (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty strong delete Lots of problems. Somewhat of an ad, no links, and not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm40 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no references and much of it looks like original research/personal opinion. It is also written like an advertisement or perhaps a love letter to the software in question asserting that it is a "shining example[,]" a "household name[,]" and "higher quality than the original game company[,]" all of which are unsupported statements of personal opinion. It also contains obvious speculation that it has "probably been used for 85%+ of all maps released for HL1[,]" again with no sources cited. It further fails to establish notability. Just because a particular game is notable, doesn't automatically mean that a given after-market editing hack program is itself notable. ZHLT gets a number of ghits but they all seem to be either directly related to the software (primary sources,) or niche sites; I found no significant, reliable, independent, secondary source coverage as per
WP:N. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The new version of the article is a considerable improvement in terms of style. The subjective info has been removed and the article sticks to facts which is much better, but there are still no

New York Times, I'd even be happy with an online gaming mag here. Does that seem fair? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That seems eminently fair to me, Olen, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if at least one source evincing substantial coverage is found. Jfire (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen them discussed in a gaming magazine several years ago. I will try to find coverage, although it might take some time. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, I don't think it will be possible to find this or any other substantial reference in a reasonable amount of time. I have found a lot of mentions on a variety of mapping and gaming news sites, but they tend to be short blurbs and not substantial coverage. Most are along the lines of "hey mappers, ZHLT version X has been released and implements new features YZW. Check it out at the official website (link)". Mappers are apparently not the target audience of magazines. I will be on the lookout for substantial coverage - just don't get your hopes up. )-: 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah wow when I wrote those arguments on the talk page, it was to explain notability. Although the statements are true, I didn't expect what I wrote to be incorporated into the article itself. If they are in the article they will need to be sourced. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ZHLT is highly notable, as you will find if you talk to anyone in the game modding community. I believe this is an example of people who don't know anything about a subject unintentionally displaying their systematic bias. I gave a series of arguments on the talk page as to why ZHLT is notable, which should be read before rejecting this subject as non-notable. The nominator mentioned that I did not bring WP policy into my points, and yeah that is true. Please give me a bit more time to research WP policy more carefully so that I may cite it (if appropriate).

OlenWhitaker takes issue with the style of the article and lack of sources. That is a problem, but should be dealt with by improving the article instead of deleting it. In any case, if the article is deleted, it should be done so in such a way that it can be easily re-created and written in the appropriate style. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now have read the policies and guidelines referenced, and believe I can properly address the points raised with respect to WP policy. (note: I am not a developer of ZHLT, just a former mapper that used it)

NPOV - I have edited the article to remove a lot of the POV people here were objecting to. This is an ongoing process and further improvements are welcome, of course. Furthermore, the article should not be deleted on this basis alone, as
WP:DEL
states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion... A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.".
Verifiability -
WP:V
states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (emphasis mine). This is not a controversial article where strict sourcing is required! It is an informative article detailing a technical tool, the details of which are sourced in the websites linked. No one is likely to "challenge" the fact that ZHLT implemented the null texture, or that there is an SDK for Unix. The one potentially "controversial" piece of information (after my recent edits today) is in the 2nd paragraph which talks about how widespread the tool is. No one who has ever mapped for HL or GoldSrc would challenge this statement, and a few minutes of googling around will confirm its validity. However, if those here believe that this statement is controversial, the offending paragraph can be easily removed without deleting the whole article!
Reliable Sources - Going by the "letter of the law", this is a tough point to refute. The article is not sourced by
WP:V
states that reliable sources only need to be used for points that are likely to be challenged. As mentioned above, I think the bulk of the information in this article is very unlikely to be challenged after the edits I recently made.
Notability - I think that a lot of people here have the wrong impression about this. ZHLT is not "yet another" random program used by a few hackers to make minor edits to some computer game. It is a tool of major importance to the mapping community, as I explain on the talk page, and it has a somewhat unique and interesting development history which I would like to expand upon if the article is kept. This is probably the most difficult thing to convince non-modders/mappers of - we have hundreds of tools and programs, and without doing a bit of mapping it would would be hard to understand why a particular compile tool is important while a certain model viewer program is not, etc. To a non-mapper they all look the same, and this creates a form of
WP:N
, a lack of reliable sources does not imply a lack of notability. There they state, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." This is one of those edge cases where a subject is notable, but not of the type that tends to get covered in news stories, etc.

I hope that some of you will at least reconsider your positions after reading this information and looking at the modified article. Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after the rewrite, this doesn't seem to really assert any notability criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability. Even if everything in the article could be sourced, it still wouldn't be an encyclopedic subject. Quale (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I am still an admin and/or editor at several big mapping sites. If I wrote a solid article and published it there, would that qualify as a legitimate source, or would that be considered a conflict of interest? I could also probably convince another editor to write such an article if writing it myself would pose a problem. These are neutral sites that got huge readership from ~1999-2004, but are waning now. I would take care not to present false information (as always). What do you think? Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as bundled. I would recommend that individual articles are nominated by themselves, as some may have slipped through the cracks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwordSearcher

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BibleTime (2nd nomination), which were speedied as re-created material, however per the closing admin, these do not appear to be. However they suffer from the same issues so I'm bundling again as a part of an effort to get notability consensus as a means to see if a category or article is needed. All of these have copious ghits that are howtos, forum discussions, blogs and mailing list. RS issues are raised on an individual basis next to each nom:

ETA: this one has apparently been deleted before albeit more than a year ago. Appears to still have the same issues TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

, no notability

limited to press releases.

of notability

to be.

There are a couple of others on the list that I didn't include because on the surface, they appear as if they could be notable. If anyone feels different adn wants to bundle, go right ahead. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know why the closing admin before didn't do it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete - its had millions of downloads, and there are far more unnotable pages on WP that should be dealth with first.

DarthSidious (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Keep No reason to delete - "some" of these are notable and the bundle idea is also ill advised. E-Sword particularly is used by many, many thousands. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, used by thousands!notability and

other poor articles existing is not a valid reason for keep. Bundling is perfectly acceptable for articles who are up for deletion for the same reason rather than flooding AfD. Please note that the two above are involved with the article and may have a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: The problem with submitting a mass deletion is that each article has to be defended, or else all are deleted.
Swordsearcher: Shareware:

WORDsearch: commercial: This was one of the first, if not first commercial Bible Study Software vendor. The article needs a major rewrite.

E-Sword: Gratis/freeware: This is the most popular Bible Study Software in history.

MacSword: GNU GPL: http://www.cmug.org/articles/Update11-06.html and http://macministry.org/Software/Software.html provide a synopsis of the state of Bible Study software for Macintosh.

Online Bible: Article needs a rewrite. This is one of the early gratis bible study programs. (Most public domain material in bible study software traces its origins to this source.)

GnomeSword:GNU GPL: This is included in Ubuntu Christian Edition. It is included in the repository of at least half a dozen Linux distributions.

The CrossWire Bible Society: This organization is extremely publicity shy. They are also extremely reticent about what they do. This article should be rewritten to describe the front ends to their API. (JSword, BibleTime, GnomeSword, MacSword.)

Blue Letter Bible: Website: This was one of the early websites for Bible Study. jonathon (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, none of which meet
reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: this kind of bundling is simply wrong. FWIW the google search suggesting lack of notability of Crosswire Bible Society is grossly misleading. Look at this one: [3]. Gnomesword and Bibletime are in every big Linux distribution, e-sword has a huge world of external modules and the rest has been discussed above by the editor above Refdoc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, unfortunately ghits!notability. They require
  WP:N TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment There can be little doubt that software use for Bible study is a weighty enough subject for WP. Within the more popular/semi-academic part of the software
    The Sword Project) are the most relevant of their respective classes - proprietary, shareware and F/LOSS. The evidence is there and has been submitted. Refdoc (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment so merge the lot of it into
    Bible software and discuss them there since none have been proven to be independently notable via reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment you have a bizarre notion of notability. Once we have established that Bible Software is a matter worth writing an article about, the evidence available is perfectly sufficient to describe these programmes as most important of the the relevant catagegories and expand on them with an article. Notability is not an absolute measure, but needs to be seen in the context of the overall matter. Wikipedia is no paper. Refdoc (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Indeed I do, I define
    WP:CORP, neither of which any of these appear to meet. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

It would have been far smarter to suggest merging

BibleTime, JSword, and their other front ends into one article. Before it was deleted, Notability guidelines for Software included "being part of a major distro". As such, the Sword Project front ends do qualify as "notable". Their publicity shy attitude has hurt them in getting reviews. None the less, their software has been reviewed in Christian Computing, amongst other media outlets. (They give the other person all of the credit, even if the other person did nothing,but accept the glory.) It is the only Bible Software that is distributed under the GNU GPL. The net effect of that, is that it won't show up in market research reports of Bible Study Software.(These reports only look at commercial distribution, and since these programs are gratis, even if 10,000,000,000 copies had been distributed, they would have zero marketshare.)jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Under the old software notability guidelines, the product with the highest number of distributed copies in its category, was accepted as being "notable". e-Sword has had 7,000,000+ downloads to date, with roughly 5,000 CDs distributed each month in the Philippines alone. By comparison QuickVerse has distributed 1,000,000 units since its inception, and Logos Research Systems has distributed roughly 2,000,000 units since 1986. I'll also point out that e-Sword was deleted for failing to adhere to

WP:WEB requirements, without explaining why software has to have the same notability requirements as a website. It did pass the notability requirements for software. The previous AfD was because it was an add, but that AfD was never acted on.Furthermore, when it was renominated, the nominator stated that it was no longer an add.jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Whilst a poor article is not a reason to keep, it is not a reason to delete. Rather, the appropriate action is to rewrite the article so that it is a quality article. Something that these ten could easily become, if an editor were to do so. (Budget roughly 100 hours to research each article.1,000 hours for all ten articles.)jonathon (talk)

Unbundle: The problem with submitting a mass deletion in this case is that they're hardly related and discussion of their deletion is thus necessarily confused and convoluted. It's also pretty clear, from
reliable sources
. Haphazard Google News searches are especially unhelpful. Just do a search for reviews associated with these terms and you should get plenty of hits on most of them.
- Swordsearcher: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
- WORDsearch: Keep-- needs rewrite desperately, but an adequately notable company. Other reasonable GN searches, considering the merger a few years ago between WORDsearch & Epiphany Software: Bible Explorer 3, Epiphany Software. Some other pertinent RS articles: 1, 2, etc.
- E-Sword: Keep-- The article itself cites sufficient RSes to establish its own notability. QED. If you feel the need for more, Google some reviews, search Google News and drop the hyphen, etc.--you know, standard Google usage stuff.
- MacSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project. (Sort of a no-brainer. Should have been the original suggestion, as with the other two below.)
- Online Bible: Keep-- plenty of articles, howtos, reviews online--the article should really cite more than just the one. Unfortunately, Online Bible's true notability lies largely in the past, especially the 90's, where it wouldn't show up in a Google News search. So, I guess if notability is only temporary, then this article should be deleted.
- GnomeSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
- The CrossWire Bible Society: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
- Blue Letter Bible: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
- Bible Reader for Palm: Merge/Redirect with Palm Bible Plus. The latter is more notable (IMO) & has a wider user base (in my estimation).
- Palm Bible Plus: Keep-- Fairly notable. Extensive review. Brief review. Both this and the previous software get occasional mentions in Mobile Ministry Magazine. Etc. --Oskilla (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment you raise some valid points but please keep in mind
      WP:RS, E-Sword is sourced through its own website and documentation, neither of which are considered reliable per the guidelines. That's the issue with a number of other sources, including howtos, forums and blogs, they do not meet the reliable source guidelines, which is why ghits!notability. And a note on bundle, similar articles been bundled before with absolutely no drama. They're related in that they're relatively non-notable (and for the same reason) software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comment: I am not opposed to unbundling these AfDs, although I don't see what harm bundling the majority of these articles has done. However, if we are to unbundle these articles, "point of reference" links should be placed in this series of AfDs so users may cross reference each of the articles together for easier consensus. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't intend to unbundle at this point unless an admin or an uninvolved editor says it's too hard to judge them. I don't see anything wrong with the point by point and it saves copy/pasting the same rationale in a number places, as has been done/been needed to do across the recent student union AfDs. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Remarkably frank author deletion request here. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massively Collaborative Self Governance

Proposal for a new form of government. Article by

original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - self-confessed
not a soapbox for propounding new theories. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - ideology/abstraction/concept that is likely extrapolated from the references - meets
WP:NOR. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Snowball Clause Due to self-confessed original research, this article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Deletion, so there is no need to continue to run it through the deletion process as of
talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This, to me, appears to be someone thinking up a form of government based on the way Wikipedia is run, and unexpectedly finding an "example" in the real world. Also, the weather forecast for this AFD seems to be heavy snow...J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally "Also, the weather forecast for this AFD seems to be heavy snow" would be
  talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My apologies - you all are correct, this is not encyclopedic knowledge--it is original research and suffers from significant lack of notability. Kevinstonge (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branded Marketing

Although there are plenty of refs in the article, none of them provide significant coverage, as required by the guideline

on notability. the product they release, the pr1macard could be notable, but this parent company seems not to be Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Reads like advertisement/press relece, not formated or referanced according to wiki guidelines. an artcle with that much information about a company that hasn't relieced any products gives me the heebie jeebies to begin with, but I smell a marketing sceme.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of this product and company on the hispanic and latino market is expected to be profound, since they are one of the first to target immigrants and low-income population in a way that will educate the community and build their financial credibility. They do not yet have much press or attention outside the little that the hispanic press has given their announced product release, but they will be releasing their product in April and will have more references at that point. In the meantime, there is no real contact information or advertising in this article and I have tried to introduce the research about the latino and hispanic market to illustrate the credibility of the market segment and products that address that segment. I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia 24.119.19.52 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski[reply]

Comment um...if you where asked to review their material and write an article for them on wikipedia you are in fact advertising for them...your wages and where they come from are your consern, however those actions are incompatable with wikipeida policy. See
WP:SPAM to better understand what was violated. wikipedia isn't a website to get free advertising Coffeepusher (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Googling this is utterly impossible but the thing reads like a prospectus. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides references, but none of them can be used to establish notabilty. References 1 through 7 are not reliable (Company's own website, etc.). The Business Week (reference 8) article doesn't even mention the name of the company so I'm not sure why it's even there. Reference 9 is just a pointer to a website. That's not even an article, and there's doesn't appear to be any information about the company on the site. And reference 10 isn't about the company either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all the points made but I must say that I am surprised at the cynicism expressed here. The company is trying to highlight the hispanic and latino market and offer a valuable service. I recognize that they have no real verifiable references or credibility because they have yet to launch the product and I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety. However, having seen a lot of PR and marketing hype in my life and understanding that this type of publication has to be accompanied by a lot of contact and sales info in order to be effective in attracting customers I am not sure how we can look at this as marketing or a prospectus. A prospectus by its nature is meant to attract investors and this company already HAS partners like Mastercard so they are clearly not looking for investors. While I can certianly take your points and understand if you delete this article, I suppose I cannot understand the cynicism in the comments. I suppose it comes from looking at a lot of Wiki spam. I agreed to take this on as a writer because I believed that the shift in societal focus and ethnic education was worthy of comment. I also understand that Wiki has its guidelines which at times feel to me a bit like the opinion and relevance police and in an environment that was created to pool knowledge and information for public consumption, that often seems at odds to me. Su Obijiski (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski[reply]

Could you expand on your statement "...I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety." I am reading this as indicating you were asked by the company to create the article on their behalf. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S/He was "I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia" comment from IP above.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Although the request by the subject of the article cannot of itself precipitate a deletion, it is not a wholly irrelevant comment; the article in any event does not make a good case for notability.—Preceding

talk • contribs

)

Patrick Muirhead

A former

WP:BLP concerns and under past precedent, the views of the subject of an article are legitimate to take into account where their notability is borderline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by article subject placed on the article [4]: I am Patrick Muirhead. I wholeheartedly support the proposed deletion of this article. I was not a celebrity, did not create this article in the first place and do not wish to see details of my life and career online, especially since so many commentators on my previous media career are either illiterate, partisan or simply ill-informed. Please remove it. Thank you.

Keep I don't think he would have written in saying he doesn't want publicity, yet give an extensive interview to the Times. The Times article denotes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Norton

If you have any doubts about my authenticity, email me via my shop's website or phone the telephone number you will find there, and I will give you my personal assurance that I do not wish to have an article about me here. Thank you.

PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.150.190 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a very tricky case. There doesn't seem to have been much written about him until he quit Radio 4 and tried TV, and then he got coverage for walking away from TV and briefly trying to get back on Radio 4 before looking for other lines of work and badmouthing the media. There's this in the Guardian, and a handful of pieces in the Times, but he also writes for the Times so it isn't independent. I'm inclined toward a courtesy delete as barely notable to begin with, and only notable for his downfall as it were. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above perfectly illustrates my point. At no point did I attempt "to get back on Radio 4". I was only too glad to get OUT of Radio 4 after seven years of being exploited and under-valued. I would agree: barely notable. I'm just a country shopkeeper these days. Let's leave it at that. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Times indicates otherwise. Not that you seem unhappy with the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of this article sent me two emails requesting that I desist in editing the article. The first email followed a minor edit by me in which I wiki-linked
continuity announcer and my second to put the external link in the right place and not make the article sound like an advertisement, other changes were, initially at least, co-incidental. Jooler (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral (for now) we haven't had something like this since
sources proving notability. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to add more comments, re: the above remarks. Firstly, if any of you care to telephone me at work (phone number of my shop on my website) I will happily confirm that I wish this article about me to be deleted. My assistant will take any messages when I'm not there. Secondly, with surprise that it should be necessary, I urge you strongly to exercise caution in what you infer from reading newspapers. You really need to be told that???! Be clear about this, however: I left the BBC a very angry man, used national newspapers to gain catharsis and shamelessly milked my 'barely notable' status to gain as much publicity as I possibly could for my fledgling small business. It was a worthwhile strategy. Now my retail business is up and running and profitable, and I am indeed training for a new and separate professional career, I am content to settle for obscurity. I don't merit a profile here. I am not a Wikipedia enthusiast and simply cannot be bothered to learn a whole lot of arcane rules to satisfy your collective instinct for tidiness and order (though not accuracy); I simply want the article scrubbed. Don't pontificate on my bona fides: phone me (or email) and find out if you have any doubts. Patrick Muirhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are Mr. Muirhead is not for debate, it's 1. If your article meets

notable. We try to be as neutral as possible and Wikipedia does not delete articles by the subject's request. I live in America, but am an Anglophile. Sadly, I do not get any British newspapers to even know why you left the Beeb. I did look around the Internet and yes, there are some sources about you, but the fact that you want the article on you delete doesn't do anything. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Take an objective view of what you just wrote. You don't delete articles by the subject's request. How utterly bizarre! A person's desire NOT to be profiled on a website should be their choice and a prime consideration. Anyway, I think we can all agree that I do not qualify as notable. And to lessen the workload for you and your busy Wikipedia bees correcting my revisions, it would be wise and expedient to remove me. I have access to multiple computers and a lot of determination. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see that there's enough in this article as it currently stands to demonstrate notability. I have to say, though, that I'm sorely tempted to try to work the article up to standard myself, in reaction to the contempt and hostility being displayed here. I'm not proud of myself for that reaction, but there it is ... Mlaffs (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bjarne Berg

This article was originally speedy deleted under criterion A7, but a DRV determined that notability was asserted and it should have a full AfD discussion. See

WP:BIO for notability of persons. Therefore, the article should be deleted until and unless reliable sources demonstrating notability can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recently hired assistant professor at a small liberal arts college; I can't find any citations to his papers in Google scholar. Too soon in his career to have made an impact; does not seem to pass
WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete cut and paste from CV with some personal information added.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Snowball Clause Without evidence of nobility, this article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Delete, it has been though the process once and there is no new reason to appeal the original deletion, so their is no need to run it through the deletion process as of
talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- This article has not been through AfD before. All prior deletions were based on speedy criteria A7 which a consensus at DRV held not to apply. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to the speedy deletion. I believe that the decision to speedy delete it for criteria A7 still stands. --
    talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete. This is almost a decent resumé; unfortunately, a resumé, like a good Wikipedia article, requires verifiable references and this article has none. Even if all the info contained therin were verifiable it is questionable whether or not this article could meet notability standards; I think it unlikely. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete First, the speedy was reversed at Deletion review, as it should have been , because a claim to many publications is a claim to notability. The problem here is how to evaluate the publications: they are not peer reviewed articles, as is usual for most academics. But this individual is working in an applied field, computer science, as an expert of the SAP programs, a major suite of enterprise resource planning software that is important enough to be a reasonable academics specialty. and publishing working papers and miscellaneous articles of various sorts about his subject. Lenoir-Rhyne College is not a major university. It's a liberal arts college with a strong orientation to professional studies in education and business. He's assistant professor there, and had published a long series of working papers and p practical guides and conference talks on this special subject. Many are in what seems to be a leading journal for the subject, even though it is not an academic journal. [http://www.sappro.com/. though it was not emphasised in the publication list, he is the author of 7 books on the program--I've added them. They were published by a specialised published distributed by St.Martins, not a vanity publisher. They're held in libraries--between 32 and 102, for the different titles, which is not that much. There are much mroe important mboosk on SAP, some help in almost 1000 libraries. Not a noted computer expert either..DGG (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn prof at low-end university. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milqud

Doesn't seem to be a notable band at all. Only links are to MySpace and band's page, which is a redirect to MySpace. Claims to have toured throughout the UK, but said claims aren't backed up by any sources. Only album is self released; only singles don't appear to have charted. The band's page was previously A7'd; this is supposedly a longer re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT::Milqud (pro. MILKWOOD) is currently an unsigned band, hence why there is nothing in the album charts, try visiting indiesolo.com as thats where they were crowned 2007 Presidential Pick Of The Year, they also competed in Bodog, and they are currently recording with Houston Boy, a rapper from Oklahoma. There is a huge fanbase that increases by the day, they have already had good comments from suh producers as Craig Hardy who claimed they hav the potential and WILL make it. The new website is also now up, and the myspace site has been revamped.

http://www.milqud.com http://www.myspace.com/milqud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.112.55 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely asserts notability (voted the best unsigned band... by whom?), no sources in article support notability, Google revealed no sources that could be added. <eleland/talkedits> 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoesn't have last names for members. No notability (has released only two songs) and website is still being constructed. It COULD be improved but... Mm40 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article asserts notability but fails to establish it.
talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article fails to establish notability so it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Delete, so there is no need to run it through the deletion process as of
talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Very close to speedy delete under {{db-band}}. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked Google News archives and a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and could find no sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. tomasz. 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts notability that doesn't seem to actually exist.
TALK) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Demar

Non notable filler character. The imd gave her a 19% chance at stardom. Also, the character she played is not even a main character. I looked at the main characters for this show, and she is not one of them. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:BIO with ease. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting nobility, so there is no reason not to delete it as of
talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete without prejudice for recreation. Her character had a build-up in the last episode prior to the strike and they wouldn't have done that if they won't have plans for her character. --Howard the Duck 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of films

The original VfD for this was kept only because the category system wasn't fully set up to replace this. As it is, it's ungainly and unmaintainable. Contested prod to see talk page, which didn't explain much since no one's used it for a year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Afds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies (no consensus/keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by title (procedural close)

Keep The category still looks disorganized and clunky... I'd much prefer to use this article. --Rividian (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dijointed/clumsy/poorly written articles are not a reason for delete. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good example of why
WP:USEFUL gets a bad rap. JJL (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I removed the prod tag, and was still in the process of writing the talkpage note (Talk:Lists of films#Prod tag) and note to the nom (User talk:David Fuchs#List prod).
Might I suggest that the nominator attempt to raise issues on the talkpage himself, before leaping straight to AFD? Especially on large and old articles, and especially on ones that he has nom'd for deletion before.
From the list's talkpage note:- Possible decisions include: tagging these [lists of lists] as disambig, or moving them to portalspace, or leaving them as they are, or something else. I have no preference, but do wish people would stop trying to afd/discuss them all individually. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wisdom89 and JJL Lugnuts (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How else are people that are searching for
talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the category. If the category is disorganized, fix it. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that redirecting to a category isn't acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not, then Delete. Unnecessary and seemingly endless and indiscriminate list of lists. This is already adequately covered by the category. Collectonian (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our category system is inconsistent, poorly-maintained, and has an inadequate interface (hard to get any kind of overview of it, without resorting to Catgraph). Most readers don't even notice it.
See also
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates for the editing guideline. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It's a little clunky but provides needed navigational overview. Why force people to muck about in categories? --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In what way is this page "unmaintainable"? The list is a useful navigational aid that provides greater organization and structure than what a category is capable of, so it's hardly redundant. PC78 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page is the top tier of a navigation system, perfectly in line the second point of Wikipedia:LIST#Purposes_of_lists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only reason that a :Cat and a Article cannot coexist is if the Article does not bring anything to the table that a simple :Cat listing cannot do. In this case it is doing that by giving Readers multiple meathods (all in 1 Article/place) of doing just that. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Sometimes lists are better than categories, and this is a good example. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have redirected the articles; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoopanese

I hate to do this, since I really like Da Yoopers, but unfortunately, it seems that their albums fail

WP:MUSIC

. All of these albums were released independently; the only sources that I can find for them are either the liner notes or short, mostly one-sentence reviews on All Music Guide -- in other words, no substantial coverage whatsoever. Also, the first four albums were cassette-only releases that have been out of print for almost a decade now; therefore, they're especially unlikely to have been covered.

Even though the band is clearly notable by criterion #7 of

WP:MUSIC (the article's sources assert that they're prominent representatives of Michigan's musical scene), the lack of available information on their albums concerns me. Since it would be far too much information to simply merge the albums' track listings into their page, these album pages should probably be deleted for lack of individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The later albums feature slightly longer AMG reviews; however, I feel that this is more of an all-or-none case, so I'm listing them all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At first I was concerned that TenPoundHammer might be off his rocker, saying "slightly longer AMG reviews" because "reviews" means "secondary sources", and articles with secondary sources should not be killed. But upon reading the AMG reviews, they seem quite monotonic. Basically, the encyclopedic content of the album articles, and of the AMG reviews, boils down to "they wear thin after a while". All the rest is just lists of skits and songs without much interpretation, and the few skits that the AMG reviewer does single out for comment could be mentioned in the main article. So merge the albums into the main article, minus the lists but plus the specific criticisms. Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to merge, since the band's page makes mention of all their albums already. Also, as far as I can tell, AMG is the only reliable source to have reviewed the albums -- and to base their critical reception entirely on AMG might be
undue weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirct to the page on the band, so that people searching for the albums can find the information located on the band's page. -- saberwyn 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to
Da Yoopers discography page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge albums to main article of notable band or create a subarticle. While the band meets
WP:MUSIC, unfortunately, the albums do not have enough coverage to warrant articles themselves. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly we want to include the information about these albums somewhere in the encyclopedia. Either in their own articles or as part of the article on the band that recorded them, neither or these options requires deletion.
talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment We seem to be headed for a consensus to merge. Therefore, I am taking Dhartung's idea and making a separate
tracklist}} templates to save space. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Support da merge to
chatter) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a derivative of a copyright violation--but without prejudice to recreation as long as it's not cut-and-pasted from the company Website.

96 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

PXE International

I nominate this article for deletion because the author has requested deletion [5] but others have edited the article and notability has been established. It seems that there is a coi, I draw to your attentions these articles too:Sharon F. Terry and Patrick F. Terry. My opinion is keep. Cenarium (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Copyvio concerns: The #History section of the article comes from the organization's website, under ["History of PXE International": First paragraph and list, including the "(Figure 1)", is taken from Initial Plan, with a few words omitted. While the next part of the section is from Groundwork; followed by Discovery of the Gene Associated with PXE. In fact, it seems that the entire article comes from the subsections of their History menu. Will post a copyvio note on the author's talk page. However, it seems that the group might be worth an article. — ERcheck (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Sorry, to say! Nicely written article. It a shame it does violates copyright, as pointed out above. Shoessss | Chat 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Zumwalt West Middle School

)

non-notable middle school, the one peripheral fiber of notability did not happen at the school and does not accrue to the school Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Zumwalt School District as per WP:SCHOOL proposal and the merge-school tag that was already on the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy. These do not need to come to AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and don't take to AfD in the future, just be
WP:BOLD and redirect it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect - per precedent. I don't think there is enough notability yet although these Google News reports suggest there could some more by May 29th perhaps. EJF (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Jamie Brace, Keep Hounds Tooth. I'm not redirecting the former per TenPoundHammer's comments. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brace

Spammy article on a non-notable singer; the band Hounds Tooth ~~has no page~~ doesn't seem notable either. This page is also composed mostly of review quotes and external links. Only claim of notability is an award from

WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The singer won an award from the third largest newspaper in the state of Wisconsin, and her band was described as being at the center of the Milwaukee-area blues scene. Mvuijlst (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, I would support moving this page to a page on the band, with a section on the lead singer if the band's notability can be asserted through sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created a stub for Hounds Tooth. Redirect Jamie Brace to there for now? Mvuijlst (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band doesn't have even a credits/discography on AllMusic, let alone a biography, which makes me doubt its ability to pass
WP:MUSIC. The award is local, and much as I love the Shepherd Express, it's a free weekly in a city noted more for its rare breakouts than a nationally-recognized music scene. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - possible redirect to
talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Whoops, didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't there (see above). There's nothing in there asserting
WP:MUSIC passage, either. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The band might be notable enough, but the individual members are not.
talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Given the near-total lack of sources here, I endorse the deletion of the newly created Hounds Tooth stub. I would have redirected if I could have found any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dhartung, sorry. tomasz. 11:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As described above. Keep and improve the
WP:MUSIC. SingCal 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Both Doesn't come close to passing
WP:BAND. faithless (^speak) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Hounds Tooth and focus on improving that article first. --clpo13_(talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non Admin Closure

^{talk to me} 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Juni Fisher

Tagged for notability since November with no improvement. Almost reads like a copy & paste job. Has a couple of awards, but said awards dont seem to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry, the lady did win two awards, that have been verified. Though neither award is a
Grammy, neither are local competitions either. Shoessss | Chat 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article meets core policies, requires clean-up not deletion.
talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I did find this but I'm coming up pretty short on sources otherwise. I'm not yet convinced enough to withdraw this nomination, but would reconsider if other sources are found. I have stubified the article and removed the promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple sources including feature articles about her in The Fresno Bee, and The Press-Enterprise. I sourced her Academy of Western Artists award to Billboard. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--

talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hank Woji

Has a few claims to notability, maybe just this side of an A7, but he seems to fail

WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete- per nomination and CSD A7. AndreNatas (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree - Maybe after a hit song. Shoessss | Chat 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have put this under db-person. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to School District 36 Surrey per WP:SCHOOL. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Elementary School

nn elementary school Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 36 Surrey as per proposed WP:SCHOOL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 36 Surrey. --clpo13_(talk) 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enver Creek Secondary School

non-notable, Wikipedia is not a directory and does not need a stub on every school just because a template exists Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 36 Surrey as per proposed WP:SCHOOL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a high school but one where there has been a notable controversy. [6].
talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add he material cited by Terriers fan. If its important enough to use for notability it belongs in the article.DGG (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - done.
talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The school and its bullying problems have sustained
WP:RS attention and not just with the suicide: [7] [8]. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge content and redirect as search term as the bullying controversy fits into the School District 36 Surrey controversy, also as per Kintetsubuffalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmloof (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per comments above. The write ups for the suicide appear to be about the individual who may in fact be notable. However the school does not inherit the notability from the student. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cupids (club)

Was in the news for a very short time many years ago. Now holds no value to Wikipedia and is just an advert for a sordid backstreet sex club with the only "claim to fame" having a politition visit. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete- per nomination, non-notable club. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the brothel-known-for-one-event policy. Seriously, unsourced, no real notability asserted or shown. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The club did achieve notability from reliable – creditable and verifiable sources as shown here, [9]. Concerning a one-event policy, as listed in WP:Notability, the policy applies to the individuals involved in the event, not the event itself. This club meets the requirements that are necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, though we may agree with them or not. Shoessss | Chat 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Piece is now inline cited – sourced and references provided. A complete copy of all comments can be found on the discussion page. Shoessss | Chat 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss and citation additions to article. It has been the subject of multiple independent secondary reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Koll

The articles makes claims about being "award winning" and being noted for having a large vocal range, but there are no independent sources which show that she meets the definition of ANY of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as

WP:MUSIC. Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong delete. Singer isn't the subject of any sources, and any claims of notability aren't backed up by any sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. AndreNatas (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter E. Reno

)

I can't find any reason this guy should have an article. He's an undistinguished naval officer who died at sea in an unfortunate accident. Other than that, there is nothing here to hang an article on. Per

WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I see no reason to keep this article around. Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into USS Reno (DD-303) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Will ^(talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Carom (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The Navy bio (basically the same text) indicates no high medals or any other reason to consider him noteworthy (he was apparently asleep in his cabin when his ship was rammed, and played no role in the aftermath, per this). While being the namesake of a vessel might suggest some, if it's the only reason to include someone they are best discussed at the vessel's article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commanded a warship in wartime and the navy consdiered him important enough to name another ship after him. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why is it important that he have his own article, and not simply have such facts mentioned in the article on the ship named after him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sceptre. faithless (^speak) 22:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7.

96 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Zengxin chemical

Insufficient indication of company's notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per

WP:CSD#A7, since the article does not even indicate WHY they are important. This is below even notability... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete A7 per above; no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- per these above. AndreNatas (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles of Life

Aside from being a near-duplicate of its author's article (an autobiography, and all that) it totally fails to meet

WP:BK

, and in addition, doesn't even attempt to assert notability. A speedy-tag was contested. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I can't see the logic in this statement: what do you expect the plot of an autobiography be? Ballard is one of the most important living British authors, and I cannot see why his recent autobiography should not have its own page. Besides, there was already a link in the page on Ballard. The autobiography is quite important as it clarifies some aspects of his previous semiautobiographical works, Empire and Kindness, and offers relevant information about the life of the author. --James.kerans (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I don't expect the plot to be anything other; I just think that the article is useless. Anyway, please read
this page and follow the instructions on how to assert the article's importance; your paragraph here
isn't really much better, I'm afraid. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep A book by JG Ballard is notable. Any issues with the quality of the article should be dealt with by editing it.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well, quoting from the page you suggested, J.G. Ballard is so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. There are 3 academic monographs on him in print, one of from Liverpool University Press, one from Manchester UP. Two other book-length essays on him are forthcoming. Not many living British authors have been so honored by academic critics. Nonetheless, I have added five (5) external links to websites of important British newspapers that have reviewed the book, and have stated its importance. In case you are not knowledgeable of the author, please visit this website http://www.ballardian.com/. All this discussion is slightly surreal. We are not talking about a minor writer; we are talking about someone whose works have been translated all around the world, a contemporary classic, and the publication of his autobiography is a literary event. Surely the entry that I have create is far, very far from perfect, but that the idea that an entry on Miracles of Life is deleted, not improved, is--well, let's say that it's rather funny. --James.kerans (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A live person historically significant? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment suggest you read

WP:BK. It is a fait accompli that the article won't be deleted.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply - Is that all you can answer to my reply? Yessir, historically relevant as he is already part of British literary history. An international conference on Ballard was held last year in Norwich, at the local university, with guests from several countries, and that--once again, I repeat it--is proof of Ballard importance in the literary environment and beyond it. --James.kerans (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Where to begin! 5 reviews in the biggest British broadsheets means this topic meets
WP:NOTE by a landslide. The author is so notable that all his works would be notable even without secondary sources. It is inexplicable that the nominator would have nominated this article for deletion had thy any idea who Ballard is. I recommend a swift face-saving withdrawal of the nomination. скоморохъ 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge. I don't think it's important enough or idiosyncratic enough to need a separate article from its author/subject; unless you can say something besides "this is his life as described in our article on him", what's the point? But the reviews make it notable, so whether or not to merge here is editorial discretion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there are missing elements also in the autobiography, and much of the added value of the book is that there Ballard comments on the envents of his life that have been already told, in a slightly or heavily different form, in Kindness and Empire; plus he adds information on his family he had never disclosed before, including pictures. As I have already said, the entry is far from complete, but this is a matter of editing, not deleting or merging.--James.kerans (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 213.140.21.227 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why on Earth is that worth more than a couple lines in

J.G. Ballard? Yes, the book has added value, but you can say that in a sentence. I'd say that saying the article isn't complete is missing the issue; the plot dump needs to be removed and an explanation of what's notable and interesting about the book itself needs to be added. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - The notability of the book is clear, given Ballard's status and its importance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The external links to reviews show that this autobiography is very notable. Bláthnaid 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any book by J. G. Ballard is notable, and the referenced reviews (of which there are sure to be more, given that the book was published very recently) just confirm that. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the reviews. DGG (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reviews give it
WP:BK only allows it to disreguard the above if it "is a subject of common classroom study", which is never stated or proven.) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You are very much mistaken;

WP:BK offers five conditions, all of which are sufficient and not necessary to establish notability. Criteria 5 states that "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Being a source of classroom study is merely cited as an example of how this might apply. Regards, скоморохъ 09:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But he is, in fact, a subject of common classroom study. Here's just one syllabus I found: [10]. And there's plenty more out there... Klausness (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. And once you have mentioned in the Article that he is the "subject of common classroom study", allong with a Ref, there will be no doubt in this AfD. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main J. G. Ballard article already has plenty of evidence that he's so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable. As скоморохъ quite correctly points out, being the subject of common classroom study is just one example of how this might be shown (and, in any case, this would be more appropriately shown in the main J. G. Ballard article rather than in an article about one of his books). And given the large number of reliable sources currently cited in the article (between 8 and 11, depending on your threshold of reliability), this book would clearly count as notable even if the author was not otherwise notable. Klausness (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to vote for merge to Ballard. At the moment notability for this outside of being a source for his life is skimpy; As it stands, it tucks neatly into his own article. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is non-trivial coverage in 5 reliable sources "skimpy" notability? скоморохъ 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been reviewed in just about every major newspaper in the UK (which appears to be the only country in which the book has been released so far). That hardly seems like skimpy notability. Klausness (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reliable sources are eight now. The book has its own literary value, is is not just a source for Ballard's life. This should be discussed in the entry, but could not be done if it is eliminated.--James.kerans (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

a/c) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Newport Free Grammar School

)

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements in

WP:ORG

- certainly doesn't assert its notability as is the general rule. A speedy-tag was contested. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - From
WP:ORG "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]... from a quick google search. The article needs work but should not be deleted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair enough; my complaint was that it didn't assert its notability as is required. Note that your fifth link isn't actually any good, since it's a government department that lists data on all schools iirc. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of those links are reliable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are - the first link, for example, is a University which is obviously notable.

talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So a government department that lists all data on schools isn't reliable? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. In and of itself, it isn't notable. Fleeting mentions or listings in independent sources isn't enough. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founded in 1588 - obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see - what's the cut-off date for notability by age, then? 1589? 1703? 2006? It's a bizarre idea to suggest that age makes something notable; my grandparents aren't notable, nor is my family by virtue of the fact that it was "founded" even before that school... —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Age does tend to make things notable; on one hand, old things tend to have a long time to have things written about them, and on the other hand people are interested in the things that survive an exceptionally long time. If your grandparents were still around after more than 120 years, they would be notable. But there's certainly no magic cut-off line for everything, and even for narrow subjects it's usually easier to take on a case by case basis rather than create an arbitrary line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's verifiable and the age makes it notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theresa. Remember that an article need not explicitly say, "So and so is notable because..." Indeed, it shouldn't say that; that would be considered
peacock language. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 420 year-old school, bound to have some sources; GoogleBooks and GoogleNews shows promise. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per googlenews. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the nominator says "A speedy-tag was contested." A high school founded in 1588 is not notable? Sheesh!
talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Hassan

unnotable, fails

WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete — No established notability. Seems to be promotional — first external link is to a page selling his book (no G-hits on the book). — ERcheck (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find this from the BBC, but currently he fails the notability test. Renee (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The Wikipedia article and the BBC profile have none of the same focus. Neither one really establishes notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All --JForget 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Know What You Did Last Winter (Web Movie)

Google search shows only 4 hits, none of which are relevant, so I can't see it can passing our

WP:N guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Delete See also I Know What You Did Last Winter. Lets not bite the newbie, but this isnt WP material (not notable). -Reuvenk_{T C} 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for reasons above. Moncrief (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete
WP:N--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as non-notable web content. I removed the wikilinks which implied that an Air Force general and a New York city councilman were among the cast (more likely, the cast members just shared the same names), as well as the claim that the movie has been rated R by the MPAA (it hasn't been, and the article claims that the movie hasn't even finished filming yet anyway). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding I Still Know What You Did Last Winter to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CoOmment I just nominated I Still Know What You Did Last Winter for CSD:A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Probable hoax. Found another one as well: I'll Always Know What You Did Last Winter -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per comments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. They don't meet
WP:N. Ale_Jrb ^talk 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as suggested and tagged. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Govere Colliport (iBoy)

A musician who claims to have been #1 on UK charts. Yet no google hits outside Wikipedia. Any chance whatsoever the claims of fame aren't simply made up? Weregerbil (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources check out on him. No charts list him, nothing found on everyhit.com, All Music Guide or anywhere. In fact the only ghits for the artist is to Wikipedia and mirror sites. If he hit #1 on the UK Singles Charts, I would've at least gotten something. And the fact the album went Gold in America? I've got nothing on that either. This is a
hoax. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong DELETE. When I first saw this page I immediately noticed its lack of references and on that basis alone I would have moved for deletion. A further look revealed some fairly incredible claims such as having sold a total of almost 2.3 million albums and having an RIAA certified gold record which led me to think the page might be a hoax. Then I noticed that there were refernce numbers next to some items but no references at the bottom of the page. I looked into it and found that the page had references but there was no {{reflist}} tag to allow them to appear. I fixed this problem and began to check these references only to find it is a complete fabrication. The MSNBC and Washington Post articles cited do not contain the quotations and/or titles listed and make no reference at all to this supposed artist. The Soundscan numbers that supposedly back up the claim of having sold 799,400 albums are actually about another album and artist, and the RIAA database of gold albums shows no certifications for this artist or any of his supposed works. This is most definitely a complete hoax. OlenWhitaker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Blatant hoax. Citations don't pan out. — ERcheck (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete
WP:HOAX--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax per everyone above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

I believe the claim for notability is related to collection of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia, but it's hard to tell with all the other cruft here. Many ghits for "Mark Bellinghaus" but most are his own blogs or PR pieces. One minor role in major film. Fails

WP:BIO

(lacks significant awards, recognition, or press coverage). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By reading this article, one can see that there are numerous sources which reference back to the subject's contributions in uncovering Marilyn Monroe Memorabilia Fraud. Such notables as Michael Shermer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer) included articles about Bellinghaus' research in his online magazine and website. This topic and subject was covered by major news agencies. Two out of 29 sources referenced in this article are Bellinghaus', that is not considered "most".

Is there way to request that an article deletion request be reverted? If so I'd like to do so. --Papillonbleu (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest thing you can get to this is 'speedy close as keep', but that is unlikely to happen here, so no, not really. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's difficult to plough through this article, filled throughout with lavish praise, to get to the subject matter. There doesn't seem to be too strong a claim of genuine notability, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm replying under my own comment, since the formatting below is a little mixed up at present. Anyone feel free to move this should this be sorted out.) Being referenced by other Wikipedia article(s) confers no degree of notability, particularly when contributors to one article can easily create backward links in another. Notability thresholds are met due to multiple external independent sources. It gets closer however, with the Shermer reference; however, Shermer didn't so much write about Bellinghaus, he introduced him and published an article by him. (FWIW, I'm an eSkeptic subscriber myself and received the article in question.) — BillC ^talk 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill C, this is what I've been trying to note to User:Delicious carbuncle in our discussions below. I believe this subject fills the basic criteria for WP:Notability for People with independent sources for both film and television appearances and investigative work into Monroe. This includes secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That includes the Shermer reference, as well as coverage from sources noted in Eric Berlin article and other articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for using jargon - "ghits' is short for "Google hits". I wasn't referring to the refs in the article itself, although spotchecking those, I see that several of them don't mention Bellinghaus at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this is actually the third nomination, not the second (I used Twinkle to submit). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see source articles on subject's involvement in anti-Fraud with Monroe, which are comprised of 29 valid sources including the BBC, AP, etc. Subject has received global press coverage with his achievements and discoveries as indicated by the resource links. As mentioned, notable Michael Shermer has written about him. Subject is also linked on Marilyn Monroe Wikipedia Article. And has been for extensive time:

Extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe See also

   * Death of Marilyn Monroe
   * Marilyn Monroe in popular culture
   * Berniece Baker Miracle, her half-sister
   * Look alike contest Monroe's popularity as a costume
   * Mark Bellinghaus Monroe memorabilia collector and activist

Subject was linked on Marilyn Monroe's Wikipedia Article for the importance of the work done in her memory, which he is known for. This is another indicator of notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for deletions on this article appear to be vandals as indicated by this talk page below. Deletion nominations for this article have been flagged by editors, such as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hilljayne Mark Bellinghaus

Can you please provide a url from which this is a copyright infringement, I have removed your speedy tag until this is done, as I am unsure as to the validity of your speedy tag. Regards, SGGH speak! 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle appears to not be using these labels with care, as based on other examples on user's Wiki Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle --Papillonbleu (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to on my talk page, but this isn't the forum to discuss my actions. I am not User:Hilljayne, nor is that user the nominator of either of the first two AfDs, so I really can't see the relevance, or the justification for accusing anyone of being a vandal. Note that notability is not portable -- Michael Shermer is not the topic of this article -- and that links from other articles do not connote notability. Please review AfD discussion guidelines. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of being a vandal but noted that there were questions on your Talk Page about other cases you were involved with and that the Bellinghaus article was submitted for deletion by another user and was flagged per the attached

our post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of Shermer, he is a notable subject on Wiki who has written about the Bellinghaus findings. Bellinghaus is also referenced on the Marilyn Monroe Wiki article. Plus written about by major news agencies many times. This should show subject's notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly protest the deletion process since it has become a farce like procedure. If you are looking in the history tabs of the Mark Bellinghaus article you can see that there were some individuals who obviously were trying to hide, what Bellinghaus and some others have discovered. I also highly protest to claim that Michael Shermer's supporting reprint is 'irrelevant' since he has established himself for many years now as an important voice for the people who are taken by 'believeres' in anything. The debunking of James van Praagh alone should grant the Mark Bellinghaus site justice. I did not see the Michael Shermer link in the past history so I added it myself. It has been proven many times now, that some other individuals have been vandalizing this page in particular, people who came on just for the purpose to cause damage, and in some cases they also claimed things about Mark Bellinghaus which were harmful to his persona. It is quite obvious to anyone who is looking into the details of this matter, that he has been fighting people who do want to harm him and discredit him for everything he achieved. Again, I find it extremely important to warn the public about frauds, any frauds.

Weareallone (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not portable - Mark Bellinghaus is not Michael Shermer and must be judged on his own merits. A history of vandalism to the article does not confer either notability or verification of any claims. Weareallone, as the most recent major contributor to this article, what is your understanding of how Bellinghaus is notable? Can we at least agree that his film work does not meet WP:Notability and therefore ignore 1/3 of the article's references? Out of the rest, some are links to PR sites or Bellinghaus' own blogs, and about half of what's left don't even mention Bellinghaus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going back to the first nomination, I said If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it. There are extremely marginal claims to notability as a collector, but the article has consistently been used in a POV and promotional way. There's simply no way that the non-memorabilia portion of his life/career are worth an in-depth examination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you question his notability with his television and movie career? Plentiful references in this article document that. Shermer's support of Bellinghaus should be considered plus Bellinghaus stands on his own within the reference links, which are quality links that reflect international news coverage about Bellinghaus. --Papillonbleu (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you are missing the point here. I have not noticed any attempts of Mark Bellinghaus to copy Michael Shermer in any ways. To my knowledge Mr. Shermer came to Mark Bellinghaus' first blog exposure of a huge fraud which also included the self proclaimed psychic James van Praagh. And I guess it is known what Mr. Shermer thinks about van Praagh. However, I looked into the history of the Mark Bellinghaus page and realized that a lot of vandalism happened in the past. People who edited there left lies and accusations about Mr. Bellinghaus and obviously tried to achieve in getting their own Wikipedia page.

I also do not agree that any acting work from Mr. Bellinghaus should be belittled, since he appeared not only in an international film, but is also named as starring actor in a TV series in Germany. And I guess in the United States anybody can claim to be an actor/actress, even if they cannot prove it with any work they have done in that profession. Again, it is obvious that some people would follow Bellinghaus everywhere he is going. Mr. Bellinghaus has been the victim of identity theft numerous times as well. The links are important to get the whole picture of a person who is obviously using his whole talents in order to warn the public about a group of people who are out to harm the general public by supporting fraudulent exhibitions, memorabilia and characters who claim to be what they are not. The debunking of a woman who named herself June DiMaggio is extremely important for Marilyn Monroe history, since this woman claimed that Monroe was murdered and that she was a friend of Monroe for eleven years. If people like that would get away with their claims, I hope you agree Delicious carbuncle, we all had a hard time to look into the life and history of any person of interest. Before I added the important and supporting links the Mark Bellinghaus article contained one quote and I added two very interesting (in my own opinion) quotes. I will now remove one and I hope that we can agree on an acceptable outcome. I did research before I edited anything at all and I have not found proof for a bigger exhibition scandal or hoax. You mayb be familiar with another fraud which was happening in Great Britain, but it was a museums display and the fraud was a fake skull which was claimed to by many thousands of years old. Again, we must be aware that since the crimes are still so fresh in the Marilyn Monroe exhibition frauds, that supporters of these crimes are trying to silent Mr. Bellinghaus or to belittle his work for the public. I did not mean to turn the article into a fan site as you also complained. I am a fan of fact based investigations and the success of Mark Bellinghaus' first exposures truly speaks for itself. He found a scandal and he exposed it and everything attached to this scandal would create a brighter, a bigger firework, since he discovered more and more crimes. I could go on and on about this as you see, but I really do feel that it should be important and absolutely supported if one is succeeding in making a difference in our society, that we should support him and not attack and erase him/her. The founder of this very wonderful website just was all over the news because of a personal, a private matter. Are you judging all of us editors now, just because the founder of Wikipedia has his personal belongings sold off on eBay by his former partner? Please think about this as well.

I will take out one quote from the article, and I contacted some other editors to look into this matter. The more neutral editors, the better. I also do not agree on deleting reference links. The more information, the better.

Weareallone (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above is correct if one looks at the history of the mafhoney revisions, which were undone by an editor. Also IP address in between the mafhoney user was noted for vandalism.

(cur) (last) 05:27, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106952645 dated 2007-02-09 23:09:06 by Tyrenius using popups) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:25, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106906517 dated 2007-02-09 19:47:56 by Monroe62 using popups) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:24, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 107713708 dated 2007-02-13 01:36:42 by Mafhoney using popups) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:16, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:36, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:10, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:05, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:58, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:55, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:53, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:51, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)

--Papillonbleu (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another notation on the subject Mark Bellinghaus: external link includes subject's website, which has over 93,000 hits and should also be an indicator of subject's notability in field of work and expertise.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reluctant to add another word to this discussion, but since comments were addressed to me personally, I will respond briefly. Bellinghaus' acting work clearly fails WP:Notability. I do not doubt his credits, but they are limited, he has won no awards, and has no significant media covergae as an actor. Bellinghaus' website hits are not relevant to this discussion since the article is not about his website. I have no idea why you are bringing up Mafhoney, since they have not been involved in this discussion. Bellinghaus' real or imagined enemies have no bearing on the notability of this article. I note, however, that User:Papillonbleu and User:Weareallone share the same interests, editing styles, and style of argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to qualify on WP:Notability under Basic Criteria for people: Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]

   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[5]
   * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Shermer article should qualify as secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. There are other links which could qualify as secondary and are referenced in Bellinghaus article.

And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, can you be more specific here please? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia editor Papillonbleu and I are the same person, just because we has added important links to an extremely important page? If I go into your own history I can also see some similar wordings and phrases which are used in two differnt users pages. But that is arguable as the reasons you have brought forward against the relevance of acting work. So you do not agree that Bellinghaus is a photographer, yet he literally furnished all of his exposures with his own photographs, and I also found some press releases on the Internet which show his in my opinion talent as a photographer. I saw his posting on his discussion site, where he threw in the facts that now are added to the Mark Bellinghaus page, which spill out another mean fraud and exhibition hoax. I added the Michael Shermer praise for Bellinghaus myself and I am standing behind this, since it is of great relevance, since psychics tried to confuse the public's opinion about some fake Marilyn Monroe belongings. Van Praagh supported a scam and both parties were exposed. And I would like to bring back the attention back to the second submission for deletion. It was obviously done by a person who had a personal agenda and used Wikipedia in a retaliation attack. Weareallone (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More discoveries about Bellinghaus' acting credentials that I found online. Please see this link: http://lexikon.power-oldie.com/Mark_Bellinghaus - if translated it shows that he acted in Fremde Liebe Fremde, which was an award winning show, winning several Grimme Preis, which means Grimme Prize. He played the brother of lead actress Meret Becker, one of Germany's leading actresses who also played a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". He also co-starred with Camilla Horn.--Papillonbleu (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The so-called Shermer article is merely a short introduction (which appears to be a mostly a cut and paste from Bellinghaus' own site if you look at the wording) and a partial reposting of one of Bellinghaus' blog posts. So far as I know, Shermer has not written anything else about Bellinghaus. Can we let that one go now?
Reply to Carbuncle No --Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The awards mentioned above by Papillonbleu are for the show, not Bellinghaus. Meret Becker is one of Germany's leading actresses, not Bellinghaus. Bellinghaus did not have a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". Camilla Horn is not Bellinghaus. Incidentally, the page you offer is a copy of the German WP page for Bellinghaus.
I have acted on my suspicions and opened a sockpuppetry case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Carbuncle User:Delicious carbuncle, never answered my statement why they followed me onto two Wiki articles, including this one, and instead filed a bogus report against me saying I'm a Sock Puppet. Just because I don't agree with this person and their opinions? As I wrote - "And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)" - User:Delicious carbuncle instead appears overzealous to discredit anyone who positively affirms this article. Carbuncle's suspicions are way off as evidence on the replies of the victims of carbuncle's accusations: here--Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An AfD involves voting, which is why the sockpuppetry case is relevant here (and the sole reason I started it). This is not the place to debate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of this other diversionary rhetoric aside, searching Google, omitting phrases such as "by Mark Bellinghaus", Wikipedia, YouTube, and other such terms, there are sufficient substantial hits to convince me that, if nothing other than as the owner of this collection, Bellinghaus is notable, much more than some of the biographies that exist on Wikipedia. This isn't to say the article doesn't need massive work, or that it isn't full of POV and extraneous material. But he's notable, self-made or not, which is the only criteria. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more media mentions than at the last AfD, including UK national press. There seems to have been some COI editing, which needs to be cleaned up, but that's not a reason to delete. Ty 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the current references, there are four UK press links: Times Online, Argus, BBC, and Sunday Express. Note that only the Sunday Express tabloid mentions Bellinghaus - the others do not. The rest of the references are as spotty. And in the external links to YouTube videos, the BCC radio clip identifies Bellinghuas as "Managing Director of Marilyn Monroe Productions" (not an expert); the French tv clip calls him "a passionate collector" (again, not an expert). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he is an expert or not is a matter which should be discussed on the article talk page, though I note that UK national paper Daily Express calls him a "world-renowned Monroe expert" and the story is specifically about his claims.[18] This debate is whether he has sufficient coverage from secondary sources to keep an article on him. As you have pointed out, there are multiple international sources that include him. That meets requirements of
WP:BIO. There is also a dedicated feature on him in LA Weekly.[19] Detailed discussion on the relevance or otherwise of other references is again a matter to raise on the article talk page. Ty 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The LA Weekly feature is not, as you state, dedicated, it covers several Monroe collectors. I'm assuming that self-proclaimed "expert in Marilyn Monroe" is his claim to notability, so this is exactly the place to discuss it. Otherwise, why is he notable? Granted, he seems to be a relentless self-promoter, not even having let this AfD slow down his additions to WP (see Debunker for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. LA Weekly is not only about him, but it provides substantial non-trivial coverage of him. Notability does not necessitate proving that a person is notable for any one thing in particular, but simply that there is a sufficient amount of coverage in secondary sources of that person, which could relate, in fact, to various activities. It is agreed that he has received international coverage. Ty 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a good clean up which I will do if no-one else will, but this subject is no less notable now than at the last AfD. More, if anything. If there are specific concerns, they should be raised in the article talk. --John (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the peacock terms, repetition and overstatement in the article. I hope you will agree it looks much better. --John (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as John above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of this article - this is not the place for bringing up various off-wiki conflicts. I've removed attacks on another editor which had nothing to do with the discussion, please do not reinsert them. henrik•talk 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It neads a bit of a tidy, but it seems to be notable! I do not however approve of what he has done!Flutterdance (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—
few or no other edits outside this topic. Ty 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KenyaDig

Non-notable music ensemble/duo - admittedly underground. Searching reveals nothing substantial [20] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No
verifiable evidence of notability. — ERcheck (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedied under A7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. faithless (^speak) 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkyOS

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

Was nominated for deletion on March 2, but the

96 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. This image suggest significant independent coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable. --Oldak Quill 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - querulous and way too soon renomination - renominating a week later clogs up AFD unneccessarily and unfortunately can come across as an editorially unhealthy interest in the matter of deleting the article - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was still open--I only relisted it because I suspected nobody could tell whether consensus was reached due to the large number of IP =!votes.

96 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines and contains copious original research. The article has improved since the last AfD, but I believe the notability to be fundamental to the topic is lacking. This OS is used by at most a handful of people, and the only place where is even (rarely) reported on is OSNews, which is a blog/news site dedicated to all forms of operating systems obscure or otherwise. While the article no longer reads as an advertisement (as a result of the previous AfD) this article seems to be used as a platform by its author to get more traffic to his website as a type of marketing tool. I believe this to be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. ~~Imacreditcard (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Edit: Removed vote due to additional references being added.[reply]
- Since it seems that I am not allowed to vote else the article will get renominated, I would just like to point out that this was the person who originally nominated the article for deletion. He mentions following the project on OSNews closely enough to know how often it is mentioned (rarely, you say?), claims to have researched it enough to know its usage statistics, and is persistent about the article's use as an advertisement, which we can all agree it no longer is. I feel it's safe to assume that he has a negative, preexisting bias toward the project. It's not a huge leap to make. Many advocates of
  FOSS seem to take personal offense to SkyOS. As he is not a respected contributor to Wikipedia and has made very few (one, in fact) other contributions, I am led to believe that he targeted the SkyOS article in malice. Alex Forster (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment: First of all I suggest you read
    WP:FAITH. Secondly, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a very long time, just not with a user account. Thirdly, the article which I nominated for deletion is not the same article as it exists today, the sections which were clearly vanity and advertisement were removed and the article was expanded greatly. Notice how I do not claim the article is an advertisement anymore. Forthly, it is not my job to try to prove the article is not notable, it is the job of the article to prove notability, which it fails to do so. I like many Wikipedians, do want Wikipedia to be a good encylopedia, not a collection of company press releases or random spam. And even if this article doesn't end up getting deleted, as a result of this AfD it is at least in a better condition then it was before. There is no malice to see here. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep; the article needs improvement, but the question is the subject notable. The image that Martijn Hoekstra points to shows it has at least one significant source, and I'm sure there's more. The standards for notability aren't high, and any desktop OS, independently writte, actually used by a handful of people is going to meet that standard. Frankly, if we have a good article, why should we care if people point to the article for whatever reason, or copy (in accordance with the GFDL) for whatever reason? In this case, the subject is notable, so it's our job to make that article good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a magazine cover is a good place to start for significant sourcing.
matt91486 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - yes, it's a real open source project, no, it's not in any significant way notable. And the article is anecdotal and promotional rather than encyclopedic. Should every piece of vanityware on Sourceforge have a page here?
talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Considering you have an entry
AtheOS? These are both one man projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.61.99 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No, but I don't see anyone asking for that. The magazine cover seems to indicate that there is significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Unfortunately, I can't verify the contents of the magazine article myself, and I don't know how significant the coverage is. On the other hand, putting it on the cover of a magazine usualy means there is an in-depth article about it. That alone satisfies
WP:N. That it's a real open source project is not really relevant to the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

22 other mentions of SkyOS on Wikipedia, passes the Google test with flying colors Alex Forster (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia wiki-linking itself or "Google search results" are invalid forms of notability tests. Wikipedia requires reliable references from valid third parties. The only one approaching a notability test is the said Magazine cover you added. However, this lacks any details about the magazine or the contents, also making it invalid. If you have an real references, page numbers (etc), I suggest you add them to the article. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can I ask you imacreditcard what your beef is with SkyOS, because obviously goes beyond a mere notability issue? Have you seen the number of small OS pages on Wikipedia that have far less citations? I don't see you hammering for the deletion of Visopsys, Atheos or HelenOS. A305w (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no beef with SkyOS, I have had beef with the way the article was presented. It's a much better article now, but it is not notable topic.
Comment: And Visopsys is? Why haven't you gone after that topic?A305w (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imacreditcard (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a significant project with enough media coverage. Given the smarts they're showing, I predict that this will be a notable OS when released, so why delete an article we'll have to recreate later? (BTW, SkyOS is not open-source, and is intended to be a commercial product one day. Also, the article needs a bit of copyediting.) CWC 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, interesting, and informative article. I'm surprised this has been suggested for deletion twice. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was nominated twice due to a misvote. Random IP addresses and user accounts voting twice plagued the last nomination and made it difficult for administrators to come to a clear decsion. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of article is precisely what I come to the wiki for. How else are we to make a historical accounting of OS development 50 years from now? Maury (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could clearly do with more development, but it seems notable enough (not a massive number of references, but I found enough to count it as being ok), and certainly of interest to those concerned with operating systems. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable, Media Covered, Notable - Significant to Operating System architectural progress; original and functional, not just an educational experiment, not just a fork of an existing operating system. Thinko 15:16, 10 March 2008
Keep Well sourced, and has hopes of further sources in the future. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was one of those faceless IPs that posted on the last one of these AfD discussions. My stance doesn't change. SkyOS has a place in Wikipedia. GregV (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs more secondary sources (linking to the SkyOS website doesn't count), but the magazine cover linked above suggests enough notability to give this article a chance to collect such sources. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SkyOS is notable merely for being a new, original OS that is not another Linux/BSD/Solaris distribution or clone of an previously existing OS. This is something that does not happen terribly often in the computing world. (I'd sign in with my actual username for this, but I've forgotten the password, and didn't have an email address associated with it. Sigh.) 121.45.69.253 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is already a link in the article to the full text of the magazine found by Martijn. There are 3 pages of coverage starting on page 16.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Found is a big word here, the image was in the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone just open eyes and check google with Sky OS over 1 000 000 results by now and growing. --GODhack (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice article on an interesting alternate OS. A305w (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a
WP:N for me is that it does appear to be valuable information and is part of a progression of operating systems. The article has fulfilled the criteria for notability.--Pmedema (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete The OS is nonnotable. Half is written like an advertisement, and the other half is completely unsourced. RogueNinja_talk 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "nom" didn't even say "delete", let alone "strong delete", so what do you mean by that?
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I confused this nomination with the previous one. I have added a better rationale.

Keep. Informative - even if this isn't the post popular OS in the world. For those who think the content is a bit too promotional - rather than delete it, why not edit it to make it more NPOV?--Rich0 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SkyOS does in fact have a fairly significant user base, and the magazine thing shows independent coverage. Wikipedia has articles on projects far, far less significant than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.165.95 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --LimoWreck (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please justify your votes, this is not a votation, but a discussion of reasons --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some independient third party source, including mentions on slashdot, and is under development, so it will probably become more famous with time --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walknut

)

Fails

WP:MUSIC. One release. No evidence of significant coverage. Michig (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even Encyclopaedia Metallum's entry on them is sparse and lists no label. And, of course, their homepage just happens to be on MySpace.... --jonny-m t 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They already appear in an encyclopedia on heavy metal music as mentioned above. As Wikipedia does not differentiate between general and specialist topics and this article can be sourced there does not appear to be a reason to delete it.
talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Hardly significant coverage or a reliable source, which is what's required for notability.--Michig (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a core concern.

talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What? Notability and verifiability are the two main things an article needs.--Michig (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per
WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Venkanna H. Naik

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete strange and unsourced, possibly a hoax possibly true ya just don't knowCholga
talK! 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Indef blocked sock. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced and badly written. Dreamspy (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It would be more constructive to clean-up articles which are unreferenced and badly written than deleting them. --Oldak Quill 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dreamspy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a reference to the article that confirms the the subject was

Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be plenty of independent book sources out there (see refs and http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22V.+H.+Naik%22). --Oldak Quill 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources seem to show notability.
matt91486 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Phil Bridger above. I'm not sure about the sources, as from what I can tell they seem to be little more than passing mentions, but the position certainly confers notability. --jonny-m t 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Flexvibes

Non notable software, failing

WP:N. No independent reliable sources, or any assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: this software was simultaniously tagged for {{db-web}}. (Twinkleconflict)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rituals

I believe this is an unremarkable band, and is not notable. So far there are no references, and although there are indications of notability (three albums "in active" for what that means, and touring through a number of countries). However, seeing the lack of independent reliable sources, these indications of notability should not be seen as proof of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD:A7 Band web site (therituals.com) listed on MySpace page does not resolve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unfortunately, I don't think this is quite speediable, as it does attempt to justify notability with the touring comment - but with no sources, and nothing reliable to be found (I used "the rituals" band verona -wikipedia -myspace on Google), there's no way they meet notability standards.
a/c) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete - it should be speedied, really, but I'm not sure it can be either. Ale_Jrb ^talk 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whichever way I look at it, I don't see that this band passes

WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to re-creation should they do so in the future, of course. Black Kite 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Miniature Tigers

Non-notable band with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails

WP:V. Including 2 EPs by the band, similarly unreferenced, with little or no media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 [(UTC)
Delete, a Google search brings up nothing but blog hits and other
talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep a review on them at www.pheonixnewtimes.com and at www.urb.com really says alot about them. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Urb piece is part of a contest/promotion ("The Next 1000") and is not a review. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Rolling Stone Magazine declared Miniature Tigers one of the top 25 best bands on MySpace. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Only one !vote per editor, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}[reply]
  - Comment While a mention in Rolling Stone (or, rather, on their website) is a good indication that they may become notable in the near future, having your band's name listed with 24 other bands (and nothing more) isn't much in the way of coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per information provided above.
talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources aren't sufficient to establish notability: the Rolling Stone mentions them in a subjective list of the "Top 25 Bands on MySpace." Looks promising but not up to the requirements yet. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the Rolling Stones listing is a pretty good start, I agree with those arguing that it doesn't tip this band over the notability line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kozioł

Non-notable per

WP:ATHLETE

. Paddel Netret also seems to be a nn competitor (GHits). Visor (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any proof this guy even exists, let alone these awards. Borders on a hoax ... almost G3-able in my book. I won't object if another admin decides to pull the trigger on this one, though.
96 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Kozioł does exist, he is just not as famous in as he is in Poland. Ford Prefect 2 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But still there are no claims of notability. Visor (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination shows unfortunate
systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; since when has Canada had
systemic bias issues? As far as I can tell from the article, he boxed in Canada. Was this deleted before: [21] is one of the few hits I see to anything to this article. The article doesn't give enough evidence to really research it; I'm not sure anything in there counts as a statement of notability. What tournament? When? None of the other boxers are showing up on searches. If not completely bogus, I'm going with completely nonnotable. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Probably a hoax. - Darwinek (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable, whose claim to fame is defeating Paddel Netret, who also retrieves zero google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Establishes he won a lightweight championship. More details are needed, but there's a clear claim of notability.
talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Since when are all lightweight championships notable? And it doesn't establish that he won anything; it claims it, with no sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardlss. There is a claim of notability. The nomination was done with what appears to be very little thought about the issue. The article has been created twice with similar facts but different wording. Let's slow down and do a bit more than punch it into Google and declare that all necessary research is done.
    talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Who cares if there's a claim of notability, especially if it's a lie? Uncited, unverifiable crap like this does Wikipedia's readers no good. You have five days; that's plenty of time to find something about him. --Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-evidently a hoax as we can see from the original.
WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- It is different in the old version because I misinterpreted data and ended up changing its context signifigantly.Ford Prefect 2 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs)
Delete as par nominationCoffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access original as it only seems to be available to admins. But I'm confident that as an admin
talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There's an AFD for the previous incarnation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Koziol. Basically the current version has tap dancing, different parents, a different date of birth, a different number of fights undefeated, and a different parting speech. Everything else, including the improbably existence of Czechoslovakia before WWI, is the same. Ford Prefect 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the previous article to add that "Legend has it he invented the very first candy floss machine during his retirement". His deleted contributions show him to be a serial creator of hoaxes and nonsense. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard are wrong on this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see not much neither in sources nor in notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.
talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - article shows unfortunate
unverifiability bias problems. --Dragonfiend (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nominator was incorrect to claim non-notable as there is a claim of notability in the article but without any sources, it does not meet
WP:V. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - thoroughly notable if the story was true and we'll understand someone born in 1870 won't get much coverage on internet, still some shred of reference is required to prove that that person really existed. greg park avenue (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found. None of the names turn up anything and they all sound made up, particularly after reading the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on Canadian boxing [22]. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kozioł himself wanted to take a course on tap dancing but his father urged him to take a course on boxing. Kozioł never tapped again." Come on, this is obviously a hoax.:) Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. Already deleted. Just not closed out.

talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Noveninsk

Unreferenced, no GHits, may be a

hoax. Visor (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
reliable source is provided. This looks very doubtful: (a) it's not in the big Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, which shows smaller towns than this is supposed to be; (b) the image presented as "one of three major streets in Noveninsk" is actually entitled "Main Square in Rzeszów" - a town which does exist, some way away; the identical picture can be seen in its article Rzeszów; (c) the lat. and long. provided are in a peculiar format, with decimal points of degrees and minutes, so it's not clear just what the alleged position is. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, obvious
talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per JohnCD. This appears to be a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a hoax. — BillC ^talk 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as par the above discussionCoffeepusher (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted it as a hoax — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. Already deleted, just not closed out.

talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Andrzej Koswakij

Unreferenced, no GHits, may be a

hoax. Visor (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no
hoax like the article on his town Noveninsk - see AfD just above. Article claims he was born in 1793, which would certainly confer notability, but is probably a typo. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleteno attempt at notability, no refs, citations, unecyclopaedic, etc. etc.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — likely a walled garden of hoax. Fails
WP:Verify. — ERcheck (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete almost certainly a hoax. — BillC ^talk 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas par JohnCD however if proof of a 215 year old mayor is found...well that would be notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted it as hoax — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Pawlus

Unreferenced, no GHits. May be a

hoax. Visor (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination shows unfortunate
systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - if any source can be found just to show he existed, he meets notability. But the fact that he doesn't appear in any of the Eurobasket databases concerns me.
matt91486 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no sources, can't find any sources outside of a one line wikipedia page with inadiquate sourcing. Really unshure how
WP:CSB applyes in this case...a polish native, nominates a polish basketball players page for deletion because it dosn't have any sourcing and he is demographicly inclined to be bias toward the deletion somehow?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator and others above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.
talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete article shows unfortunate
unverifiability bias problems. --Dragonfiend (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per
Speedy-Point 7. Wiki-nightmare (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Praise (series)

)

This article lacks independent sources, and addresses a product in a genre so specific that I had no idea it even existed. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't the whole idea of an encyclopedia to tell you about things you didn't know before?

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I've never heard of this genre myself, either, but I'm not at all surprised that it exists. A quick googling yields many thousands of hits for the Dance Praise game, so it's obviously of interest to many people. Sure, the article could use some cleanup (including independent sources), but it doesn't strike me as at all delete-worthy. Klausness (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Klausness. It does indeed have independent
ATA in AFD (lol) - Google test and 'I've never heard of it'. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

On the other hand
WP:NOSOURCES is a valid argument, and that was the main one. Feel free to add independent reliable sources to the article if they exist. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not anymore. I have added a significant amount of sources (both first and third party). There are now about a dozen sources for this article. Alex Perrier (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Klausness. --Oldak Quill 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Niche market stuff to be sure, but there's more than enough sources to maintain a series article. I much prefer the series article approach than splatting hundreds of stubs about containing nothing more than a box shot and a one-sentence intro. There are other sources out there covering various games in the series, but I don't want to spend the next hour sifting through them, as I've enough on my plate and fixing up this article isn't on the menu. Someone another 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources presented. --
talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, covered in The New York Times. --Pixelface (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have adequate coverage that meets
Dreadstar † 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured in Dance Praise

)

An unreferenced list of songs that appear on a hardly important Christian dance music video game (now there's a specialist genre if ever I saw one). This can safely be left to the game creator's website, it is quite definitely

cruft. Guy (Help!

)

Remember guys, if we delete this article, then every expansion pack will need an article of its own. What is better: this long list or many stubs? Alex Perrier (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Seem to be plenty of sources available for this (http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=0&oq=%22Dance+Praise%22+song). Song list available at the following, which looks independent (http://www.yourmusiczone.com/go/ymz/music_artist/dance_praise). --Oldak Quill 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and unreliable, per

WP:RS. But do tell, why should we keep a track list for this not terribly important video game? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete. It seems to me that it's just a personal judgement call as to whether or not this is too crufty. I think it is. OlenWhitaker (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a merge to
talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This list does not add anything to the game's manual. We're not that game's manual. User:Krator (t c) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to related articles. Alex Perrier (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the difference between DDR and this is DDR is a worldwide phenomenon. This game seems like a barely notable knockoff. At the very least, merge the list into the article; but really this sort of a list is just copying and pasting from the game's website, one step away from a copyright violation (and definitely crufty). Besides, the formatting is giving me a headache. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply "copy and paste". This cannot be done from the Flash applet. Many articles for compact discs have their track listings and this does not infringe copyright. The least that should be done is each individual dance game and/or expansion pack article gets its track listing, but this would add significantly to each article's length. Alex Perrier (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By 'copy and paste' I was speaking somewhat metaphorically, not absolutely literally :) And I would say that each individual dance game should not get its own track listing. -- phoebe/(talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we also recently deleted a list of tracks from Dance Dance Revolution. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the game page. This doesn't need to be its own article. --clpo13_(talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' --Haemo (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banays

Non-notable food product. The article even mentions that they have are "not yet introduced in the market". No references or citations at all to assert notability. Would have speedied, but there is no speedy criteria for food items. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it should be deleted. TurtleMunster 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Turtlemunster...Um...you are the creator of this page, and you say it should be deleted?!?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, i do. Anyway when I make changes to Wikipedia I always get accused of vandilism, so why even try to keep the page? TurtleMunster 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no
WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -
talk) 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete...Flavored Tuna Salad that is made at home but hasn't been introduced to the market yet...with instructions on how to make it into a sandwich...Honastly I feel dumber and a little put off of tuna at the moment Coffeepusher (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still winter where I live, time for a Snowball delete.
talk) 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Friðrik Þór Friðriksson. Someone knowledgeable should merge the content. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brennu-Njálssaga (film)

)

Non notable film. Lots of links, but not to reliable sources.

talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Independent, reliable sources available (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280500/). --Oldak Quill 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources on the IMDB page are you seeing that support the
existence.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: an IMDb profile is not evidence of notabilty. PC78 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a known short film from an oscar nominated director. --Steinn inn 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independant sources, no evidence of notability; fails
WP:MOVIE. ~~Notability for the films is not inherited from the director.~~ PC78 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- That last comment isn't strictly true; however, it would need to be asserted that this short film was a major part of his career, and that it couldn't be adequately covered in the bio article. PC78 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment That is an excellent point, a redirect and a brief mention in the director's bio is probably the right move here.
talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Friðrik Þór Friðriksson per last comments of PC78 & Beeblbrox. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against creating redirect to Cabanglasan. Consensus is clear that this article does not meet inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cananga-an

This cites no

original research - the report of someone's project. PROD removed by originator without comment. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete reads like outline for travel log. no sources,
WP:OR as par nomination.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment created with the tagline "This is the pre output of the research not the whole text" == INTRODUCTION == This art..." so I read that as self professed
WP:OR Coffeepusher (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability which discusses some other recent barangay AfDs, I'm not convinced that this is notable enough for its own article. —SMALL JIM 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hemp Gru

Non notable band fails

talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the group gets a fair amount of hits, I was not able to find any
reliable sources to verify any information. --Kakofonous (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

comment I think I just saw a
talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O Pianista do Cinema Mudo

Artist page recently deleted as CSD A7. Would tag this page as CSD A7, except I'm not sure if A7 applies to their works, or just the band itself. Regardless, "one of the best" is at least an assertion of notability, so speedy does not apply. RoninBK _{T C} 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently A7 only applies to bands, but this probably could have been successfully PRODded. It does not seem, at least, to be controversial. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Non-admin closure; EJF (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Bastia 1924

)

The subject is not notable. Google search just brings up lists. I can't find any media coverage. The article was previously speedy deleted. Theymos (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What level is IV Serie (Serie D) in Italian football? Because if it's high enough for notability, it's a keep, otherwise delete. Peanut4 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serie D is the highest non-professional division in Italy, whereas Eccellenza (i.e., where the team currently plays) is the second-highest. --Angelo (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please improve it and expand it. The article is in a very awful state right now. --Angelo (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the team played at a high enough level for it to be considered notable. Definitely a poor article, though.
matt91486 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - verifiable club but dire English and structure in the article. Someone who knows both football and English needs to look at it.
talk) 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Only one sentence. I would have tagged this with CSD-A7. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club has played at Serie D, which, given the number of Serie D club articles, appears to be considered notable, although I haven't seen any discussion about it here. That said, if the English pyramid is notable down to level 10, the top amateur level of Italian football should be considered notable. --Balerion (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a team that has played at a high enough level to be notable, and the article was never in an "awful" or "poor" state, it was just a stub waiting to be expanded, like 40% of other Wikipedia articles.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Well, it actually was. I cleaned it up a reasonable amount to get it to an effective stub state.
  matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nice job on the reformatting. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in the United Arab Emirates

)

~~This list appears to attract some non-notablecompanies, moreover I don't see it adding anything that Category:Companies of the United Arab Emirates doesn't already do.~~

~~Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list attracts a lot of spam and contains no encyclopedic content. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Rai-me 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Keep per reformatting. Rai-me 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was a list of notable companies such as listed on a stock exchange, it would be a different matter. Keep given that it is now a list of notable UAE companies. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Previously, I would have said delete, but now nothing but a strong keep, as lists such as these are very important for red-link development, particularly outside of the so-called first world they are important for fighting
talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, perfectly consistent with the other lists in
mutually exclusive. --Pixelface (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have now reformatted and referenced the list in order to make it a valuable list and development tool. --
talk) 08:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as now formatted. There is considerable additional information beyond what a category can do.. Probably most of the companies here without articles ought to have them. DGG (talk)
Speedy Keep, per the reformat. As said before, this is good for redlink development, and it's always better to encourage development than to let it stagnate. Celarnor (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw based on the reformatted and MUCH improved article. Nice work Russavia. --
Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Commment Thanks
  talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Developments

Apparently non-notable local building company. Page was created on 15 June 2007 and almost immediately nominated for speedy deletion: nom withdrawn (correctly) and replaced by "under construction". No substantive edits since. Article is orphaned. Notability not asserted in article. (NHBC approval is a standard requirement for house builders in the UK. The Daily Express 'house building award' may or may not be important, but it is unsourced and I can't find it.) A search on Google (restriced to UK sites) reveals lot of hits, but these are to adverts, directory entries, estate agents' sites etc., as well as minutes and planning applications from local government planning committees. There is nothing that is non-trivial and independent that I can discern. The only vaguely useful reference is from a local paper, Lynn News (and you can't get more local) but that mainly concerns a campaign to preserve an archaeological site that the company wanted to build on, and does not support anything in the article or assert notability to the company. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN apart from adverts, which is coincidentally what this article reads like....
talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was

a/c) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

List of works by cricket historians and writers

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

Delete. Pointless list which includes all sorts of subjective entries and thereby breaches
talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Further comment. Any
talk) 10:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a useful list, which contains most - if not all - of the most significant works of cricket literature. Admittedly there are a few entries that don't belong, but that is almost inevitable. Finding the works in the list by going to all the individual author entries, as suggested above, would be less convenient (and some notable cricket writers don't yet have their own entry). JH (talk page) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per JH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morven (talk • contribs)

Keep as per JH Tintin 11:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JamesJJames - if it's a worthwhile piece of writing it should be listed under its author or referenced in an article.
talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; meets content policies, list is useful and could not be duplicated by a category. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to be a useful bibliography on the hisotry of cricket. That is not my subject, but it is still worthwhile. It is a list of books, which are themselves reliable sources. Since several of the authors are red links, the existence of this as a list (rather than a category is justified. Possibly move to Bibliography of Cricket History. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. It seems consensus is to keep the article so I will accept that and withdraw the nomination. The article does need to be improved and I've made a couple of changes already for starters. One link was incorrect, one work title was incorrect and one of the redlinks was to a deleted article which had failed
talk) 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

That would be a good idea - if you can, go ahead and make a stub for those authors.
a/c) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gitaka

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

Unsure about this article... Seems not notible RT | Talk 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ My gut is telling me this is a
WP:SPAM But I don't "get" what they might be spamming, I'm just drawing attention to the very odd way this article is formed.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete In light of the hard work that people have done researching real world sources on this AfD I'm going to have to say delete.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (change to Neutral per discussion below). I don't think it's a hoax, it seems to be an obituary/memorial notice, probably by a relative. Unencyclopedic tone could be fixed, but no evidence of
not a memorial site. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I can agree with that, like I said my thoughts were just speculation. My actual arguments were about sourcing.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Interesting.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Sources That still leaves the question of reliable sources? Do you have anything we've missed? Whether it happens in California or Nairobi we still require proper citations to insure correct information is represented on the wiki.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnCD above. Fails
WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article does provide references to two books which supposedly discuss the subject. If the coverage of him in those books is significant, the article should probably be kept. I have cleaned up the formatting somewhat and removed some sentences which were not in encyclopedic style to help editors judge the article on its merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wish we knew what was in those books. That's a big downfall of the wired world.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of them is available at my local library. I'm not promising that I will get around to looking at it before the AfD period is up, but anyone else who might manage to look them up should comment here as to whether the subject is a major figure in them or just mentioned incidentally. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Maloba book is in a library near me, but their on-line catalogue shows its status as "In Transit" so I don't know when I can get at it. Changed my !vote above to Neutral. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the time to look in to this at the library. Where did those sources come from? How do we know he's mentioned in them?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am
Assuming good faith unless it is proven otherwise. I am not sudjesting that we don't check, ~~however I am saying that to nominate delete because there is a chance that he may not be in the books referanced seems harsh~~.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, first off my delete is slashed out. Secondly, I don't think it's a matter of good faith, I'm really asking where did the sources come from. How were they found. Did someone use Amazon? Was it google books? This is a valuable piece of information to help in other AfDs.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, It does sound a little sarcastic in the reread which wasn't my intention. I was explaining my thought prossess, and not really commenting on yours.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~-Unfortunately in editing the piece, metropolitan90, has been very subjective in what material to include.He seems to have deliberately left out aspects of the piece that accurately potrayed the reality and shame that was this colonial occupation.Why? In so doing, he has robbed the character some of his depth and authenticity. It seems to me the piece was a description of the era through the actions of one its principal players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.71.62 (talk • contribs) — 81.111.71.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I struck the second "keep" from this IP as lending an impression of more variant support than may exist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my edits, please
be bold and put back the content that you think should have been kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Although, I must admit that it does now read more coherent and(/but) mainstream,so on the balance,I vote to leave it like it is, until such a time i can fittingly include previous material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.71.62 (talk • contribs)

keep If there are 2 hard books referancing him, (with more sources to come) he probably is notable. the Web based serches don't suprise me, since African Gurrellas havn't been using the internet as much as other revolutionary groups.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that logic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historical figure of importance in his country.DGG (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sourced to two books. We should assume good faith and take that as confirmation of notability unless and until someone finds that those books don't provide significant coverage. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones (and often more so).
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I have now got access to a copy of the Maloba book, and I cannot find Gitaka in it. I have not read the whole book, but I have skimmed a good deal of it: he is certainly not in the index or in the pages pointed to by the index entries on Lari massacre or Leadership, Mau Mau. My vote stays "neutral". Can anybody find the Majdalany book, which the article explicitly says mentions Gitaka? JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article stinks more and more; I've looked in the book written by David Anderson on the Mau Mau and there doesn't seem to be anything.--Aldux (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All evidence seems to point to this article being created by a dormant account that has made just one edit, this one. The references appear to be bogus: in Google.books, while there isn't the snippet preview option for these 2 books, it is possible to discover their content through a general search, and from this it seems that the word "Gitaka" is not present in either books.--Aldux (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point, I think the burden of proof has shifted. Several good faith (and above and beyond) efforts to verify this information have failed. I believe it should be deleted for failing
hoax, I believe that this requirement is reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
a/c) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I wanna be the guy

I wanna be the guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

No assertion of notability besides a forum of fans, a review on a website that launched early this year and a blog mention -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references to Boing Boing, Independent Gaming Source and Consolenauts coverage of the game. I think this is a fairly well written article and has enough sources to make it reliable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found but didn't add the following sources [23], [24], ,[25]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now adequately sourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. grrowl (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the above additions, good job! TRAVELLINGCARIMy story_{Tell me yours} 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is notable and now contains more than enough sources. Damn deletionists. :) Celarnor (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cassidy (Grand Theft Auto)

Phil Cassidy (Grand Theft Auto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A recurring character from the
Grand Theft Auto video game series. This article simply summarises information found at the various "List of Characters" articles in which this character appears. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete I took care of a series of these a while back per this nomination. ♣
Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, nothing here that can't be found at one of the (quite numerous) lists of characters. Nifboy (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Wine Tastings

Berlin Wine Tastings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article basically says that a Chilean commercial wine producer from time to time runs a roadshow where he pits some of his excellent wines against some good French and Italian ones. This might be something that might feature in a local paper but it's hardly encyclopaedic. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - el
talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging (which is suggested in my opinion) can be done by editoral process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally (Flight of the Conchords)

Sally (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These articles contain little more than plot summaries of the episodes in question.
WP:NOT
states that such articles "...should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot."
None of these episodes appear to be particularly notable, except for possibly the pilot.
WP:SERIAL
provides some sample criteria, none of which the other episodes appear to meet.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all episodes of the same television series, and all have the same issues as the original article:

Bret Gives Up the Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mugged (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yoko (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Bowie (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Drive By (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Girlfriends (Flight of the Conchords) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What Goes on Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

The Third Conchord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FiddyCent (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Time...erm...I mean Merge to Flight of the Conchords. There's already an Episode list on the main page and a bit more on each episode can be added there. Wait a second, doesn't this violate the ArbCom Injunction on AfDs relating to TV episodes and characters? Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the injunction only stops us from actually closing these discussions with anything other than "keep". People can still nominate and discuss them all they want, but unfortunately this is getting AfD a little backlogged. ArbCom should be finishing up soon - they only need one more vote to close the case before this injunction goes away, but it's taking a while.
a/c) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, episodes of a notable TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I've seen hundreds of "plot-only" TV episode articles on Wikipedia, and despite the nominator's assertion, these articles actually contain plenty of other information and very brief summaries. The ones I've looked at do have real-world sourcing and references, so I don't think a blanket nomination was a good idea in this case. --Canley (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are well referenced articles, but my issue with these articles is more of a notability concern rather than one of poor referencing. Most or all of the references are confirming plot details or backing up which songs were played. The sourcing may be real-world, but the content is not. FiddyCent (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly no consensus or guideline one way or the other regarding the blanket notability (or lack thereof) of individual episode articles on Wikipedia, which is why we had the recent ArbCom case and it seems to be one of the major battlelines between deletionists and inclusionists. Until there is consensus on the matter, all we can go by is the quality of the articles, and to my mind, the quality of these articles is good enough. --Canley (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As original author of these articles, I'm admittedly biased. However, I'd like to think that there is more substance to these articles than mere episode summaries. The show is full of interesting cultural references, most of which have been documented in these articles. It's hard to find sources of critical analysis and historical context on a television series that is so new. Who is to say which series become cultural phenomenons? One day these articles written in a contemprary context may prove valuable resources when and if these series ever become historically notable. BigBadaboom0 (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an encyclopedia should have an individual detailed article on each episode of every TV series which might become a historically notable cultural phenomenon in the future. Perhaps setting up a Flight of the Conchords wiki with a free service like Wikia would be the way to go, if you're keen enough to go into detail on every episode? FiddyCent (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is where do you draw the line? Are these episodes as notable as, say, List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes? Possibly not, but if you tried to delete those, there's going to be a much tougher fight, even though most of the Trek ones have arguably less content than these FotC ones :) BigBadaboom0 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Not only are episode pages notable, they are also very useful. The pages will most certainly be expanded with references and trivia as time goes on. --Liface (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild guys

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

Article about an "up and coming" book "under construction" by several authors who all appear in it. The originator
WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete under
WP:CSD#A7. I've added a {{db-a7}} tag to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

regular delete I have removed the speedy as books are not generally speedyable. but I agree with the nominator that "
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and Wikipedia:Notability (books) apply. Jon513 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete,
talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Is there any evidence that this page is relevant? Icewolf34 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. jj137 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Pršo

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

NN, A family member of a notable footballer. He played U17 match fort Serbia as of November 2006 (2006-07 edition), ie. he is born after
1 January 1990. Matthew_hk t c 08:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a non-notable sportsman, although I don't see the relevance of quoting his age in the AfD rationale.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly nn BanRay 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN -- Alexf⁴² 12:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails
WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Merge & Redirect to
WP:BLP. Black Kite 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Dede (Indonesian)

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

An internet freak show subject. This man is notable only for suffering from Epidermodysplasia verruciformis, no coverage unrelated to this condition. Not quite Brian Peppers but not far off. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm unsure about this. I think we should keep this person's privacy in mind, an article about him could affect his life, and we should respect the basic human dignity of this person. I don't think this is quite like Brian Peppers, since apparently Dede is in a circus troupe[26]. This person has been covered by the
WP:ONEEVENT, namely the cutaneous horns growing on his appendages — which supposedly can be cleared up with Vitamin A and surgery. Maybe merge some of the references into Epidermodysplasia verruciformis? --Pixelface (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, based on all the coverage he's received. --Pixelface (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of extensive coverage on from example
talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep, I don't think this is quite WP:BLP1E and I don't think it's an internet freak show since he's been covered in multiple reliable sources. People will search for it, but I believe he could also be merged into the disease as one of the sufferers. It's the reliable source coverage that tips it for me TRAVELLINGCARIMy story_{Tell me yours} 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep w/ Stipulations I think the sources easily make this a keep, but I also think that at any time in the future if he or anyone representing him makes a request to have the article removed we should honor those wishes and speedy it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable medical case. Lots of people might want information on this guy, and (ideally) Wikipedia can present that information without being sensationalistic. Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So cover it at the disease, not as a pretended biography. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't prevent anyone from merging the information, but that wouldn't require AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weakest of Delete - Multiple WP:RS and WP:V would tend to cause a Keep... But ... Just like it is encyclopedic to list plant species, we would not list everyone with a
WP:BLP1E Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Epidermodysplasia verruciformis. It's the only context where it is notable. 86.121.200.139 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Half Man Half Tree, rewrite as a summary of the pilot episode of the My Shocking Story episode list, and get to work on the remaining episodes. — CharlotteWebb 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would work - that or merge to the condition. Anything other than the freakshow, really. We should be above that. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an article titled "Half Man Half Tree" be worse than what we have now? That title would really reduce Dede to a "freakshow". If you're worried about human dignity, I'd go in a different direction. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Epidermodysplasia verruciformis. He's only notable as an example of that condition, so include him as an example in our article on that condition. It's not as if the article is so large that this needs to be split out of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Collier

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

Non-notable author. What appears to be his only published novel was released through
PublishAmerica, which is somewhat notorious for being a vanity press. The article says that his book "The Night Sparkles" has a "consensus" that it should be made into a film, but it doesn't say who formed this consensus, and the fact that it's still in "development" would indicate that it's not yet complete. However, it would seem to be a claim of notability, so no speedy. Despite this, there is no indication that he, or any of his books, are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ugh, blatant vanity/spam, delete - and
WP:SNOW it once a few more votes pile up. <eleland/talkedits> 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can't find any credits on IMDB [27] or Baseline [28] for anyone with this name. No news hits from reputable sources. At best it's
WP:OR and at its worst it's vanity.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO. One of his books is not even among the top 2 million sellers at Amazon.com and has no published reviews that I can find. The other one is not even for sale at Amazon.com. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Quote: "He is best known for his novel, Body Traffic, which received numerous accolades in the literature world". What are these accolates and where are the citations? This is an author we could well see more of in the future but right now there is no real indication of notability, still less any reliable third party sources - instead there's exaggerated claims and unverified speculation.
talk) 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Somehow I'd think a book that got so many accolades would get more than 78 Yahoo hits and 124 Google hits. More importantly, a search for "Body Traffic" at the New York Times archive reveals only four hits--and not one of them talks about this particular book.
96 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above lack of evidence of notability. If sources are found to back up the assertions, which don't appear anywhere, then it can be re-created. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agentss

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

Non-notable band. Article more of a promotional tool than anything else, with band being labeled as having a "cult following", with nothing to back it all up with. Jmlk 1 7 07:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, they appear to be somewhat notable with a few mentions in the music press ([29]), as well as having one of their videos on NME's website. Borderline, but maybe just enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Needs significant coverage, and a mention in a review of a various artists album isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The format and tone of this article suggests a copyright violation. Chubbles (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Energy Drink

Vulcan Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable drink product. A whopping four Ghits. No sources provided in the article to assert notability of this product. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product, already speedied a few minutes ago for advert. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to mark them for del you just are doing it because I am new at this. All of these drink companies are important the energy drink company is the only one in the world like it and the beer company is the only working one based in Alabama it looks like you just like to put thinks on real / imported info that means to me you don’t do your research before and that make you and others like you look a kid I am new at this and this is hard for me to do. I worked over 8hr on the energy drink today it would be nice if you would help people like me. I know the owners and they are good people that is how I I have the info on the companies. PAT LONG --Pat Long (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Long (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -
advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

why--Pat Long (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Pat, I can't find any reliable sources to help you fix this article. The official website doesn't even work. Can you provide anything from a newspaper, website or other periodical that talks about Vulcan? Maybe even a local press clipping if it's one of the only drinks of this type made in the local area?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while it may not be A11, it's a product listing with no evidence that it's in any way notable and no evidence that it actually is. I realise Pat Long is doing his/her best to promote products she's close with, but that doesn't make them notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete If you say Vulcan is not ok then these are not to Hype energy Joose Joose Art of the can Bawls Lost Energy Cult Shaker Sustagen and 60 more just like them--Pat Long (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because
other articles exist doesn't mean they, or this, should. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete An article consisting only of product availability, suggested uses, ingedients, nutrition facts and a sole link to the company website most definitely equates to spam.
talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Advertising. I looked for sources and they just aren't there.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced advertorial. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pat Long, Creator has been blocked for 31 hours TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced, "official website" doesn't exist, only Ghits outside of wikipedia (& wikipedia related coverage) are two Startrek sites referring solely to an inworld product. No evidence that this product exists, cannot refute hypothesis that this is a hoax. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is strong consensus that the article as is does not merit stand-alone status. There is less clear consensus on whether that judgment would change if the article were expanded in line with the sources currently included and those located during this AfD, but in the event that a separate, expanded article is restored the question of whether material merits stand-alone may best be settled through article talk space as set out at
Help:Merge. The book reviews cited in the current article have been transplanted to the author article in such a way that GFDL compliance is not a concern, and there is no other unique material to merit a current merge procedure. Reviews found during this AfD have also been added, with the exception of the Detroit Free Press review, which is coming up 404, file not found. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This book appears to be non-notable per WP standards. The only sources in the article are two Internet-based conservative commentary sites,
WP:NOTBOOK appear to be fulfilled, and I recommend Deletion. <eleland/talkedits> 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
talk) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as per EALacey. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I've done a search of news sources using Factiva and have found no reviews of it, so I concur with Eleland's comments about the lack of notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as proposed. If more information gets added about the book, we can split it back out then.
a/c) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. Though my gut instinct is to say delete, a redirect seems more appropriate. ---
The'FortyFive' 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with author, ensuring that the two external links survive as footnotes or other links (also the negative review quoted by eleland). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above argument. Annamonckton (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Reviews appear to meet
WP:N. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Religion+of+Peace%3F%3A+Why+Christianity+Is+and+Islam+Isn%27t&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&um=1 Hobit ~~Given the relative ease of finding these sources (Including the Detroit Free Press) I'm a bit worried that NPOV biases may be playing an unintentional role in this AfD.~~ (Sorry, way off base). (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep if improved - book seems notable enough for an article if the article is expanded using the sources available from Google. U$er (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil (band)

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

~~Non-notable band.~~ No sources, no real assertion of notability. Initially prodded by me, but putting up to full AFD to bundle album articles. So delete without prejudice for creation at a later date.Optigan13 (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Esradekan, major indie label gets the save, the article still needs sources to reference all of this. The individual album articles still need some reviews/etc. to keep them based on the general notability criteria. Article is also loaded with weasel words (band eschews labels). Still needs sources for all that material. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, albums by band.:

A Hostage and the Meaning of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Philosophy of Velocity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all - someone has worked hard at all the detail in these articles, but the sources are all Myspace and the like. Fails
~~WP:MUSIC.~~ Change to Keep - looks like enough sources have been found JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Favourably reviewed in a.o. Punk Press. Some more information at Pluginmusic. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:With the Punk Press article do you have a specific issue/article, I don't see anything in the current page. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per aforementioned sources, and the two albums. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets
WP:MUSIC #5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes criteria #5 of
WP:MUSIC. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with
SNL Digital Shorts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Shooting (Digital Short)

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

Non-notable
objective criterion of notability? Chardish (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge I suggest merging the fact that SNL didn't post this video to Youtube into either the SNL article or an article on either NBC, youtube or Hulu as it represents a business model shift related to these companies. It is not notable as a short, but I think it's an interesting footnote in the history of the involved companies.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
SNL Digital Shorts Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 09:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

works for me I didn't realize the shorts had their own article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article looks too long to merge into the table in the
SNL Digital Shorts article, and this particular short (and the parodies it spawned on YouTube) *was* covered by The New York Times. --Pixelface (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep (although I am fine with a merge) and move to The Shooting (SNL Digital Short). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
SNL Digital Shorts--nn. JJL (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep or Merge, strong anti-delete More information is better than less. Deletionists are almost always wrong. This is in fact a notable article for the reasons mentioned. burnte (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as a recreation of previously deleted material. ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BibleTime

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/BibleTime

Articles for deletion/BibleTime (2nd nomination)

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

Open source software with trivial RS coverage that's already been deleted once. There are copious ghits: mailing litsts, forums, blogs and howtos, but no evidence of notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) For the same reason, I'm bundling the following. Wikipedia is not a directory for non-notable software:[reply]

BiblePro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lack of rs coverage

BibleWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lack of rs coverage

PC Study Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lack of non-trivial RS coverage

Workman's Study Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lack of sources, this one doesn't even appear to be full software but rather a module of software

Davar3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a harder search due to the Hebrew term but there doesn't appear to be any coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BibleDatabase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), bundled with this AfD. Same reasons. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I tagged the article with the
WP:N. I would have done it myself if I knew that. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Coast Beer Company

Emerald Coast Beer Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beer company. No independent reliable sources provided. Initial author may have conflict of interest as hasn't edited anything outside of this company's page/beers. Optigan13 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related pages because, Beer made by above company:

Emerald Coast Pilsner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comments by User:Pat Long & direct replies

a/c) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Notable There is no reason to mark them for del you just are doing it because I am new at this. All of these drink companies are important the energy drink company is the only one in the world like it and the beer company is the only working one based in Alabama it looks like you just like to put thinks on real / imported info that means to me you don’t do your research before and that make you and others like you look a kid I am new at this and this is hard for me to do. I worked over 8hr on the energy drink today it would be nice if you would help people like me. I know the owners and they are good people that is how I I have the info on the companies. PAT LONG --Pat Long (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Long (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable becouse I know someone thats a conflict I dont think so. I you wont conflicts all the other beer/brewer in Alabama where done by there owners and there name is in history report --Pat Long (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable only beer company in Alabama --Pat Long (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable The ATF our government said so!!!!!!!--Pat Long (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining Hi Pat, I'm afraid that the government didn't say they were notable to the standards of Wikipedia. We need news or other published coverage or critiques of the product to establish notability. For example, just because you register a corporation with your local department of state it doesn't make that company automatically notable. You should read
WP:OR. If you can satisfy those criteria then I'm sure no one will dispute the notability of this company. You have to understand that Wikipedia isn't the real world per se... it's a community website with certain missions and goals with guidelines about how the community should achieve those objectives. You need to understand the "rules" so to speak. They're in place to insure a certain level of quality control and don't represent any attempt to defame article subjects, like the ones you obviously respect a great deal. This isn't personal and it's a mistake that is often made by new editors. Please do read the guidelines I've linked and try to think of ways to improve the article based on those guidelines. That's the easiest and fasted way to make sure your article stays in this wiki.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Notable I just read Notable
WP:RS and to get a beer though the ATF and all the background that is done on the companies and the people that is very Notable at the highest standards if it were so easy there would be hundreds of beer company’s and there is only two in Alabama that have a licensee and Emerald Coast is the only one in business. There are less then 120 in the US.--Pat Long (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm sorry Pat, but I still don't quite think you're understanding this correctly. I'm sure it very difficult to use the Trapeze at the circus (sorry, running low on the metaphors today) but that doesn't make everyone who is a trapeze artist notable. They would have to have been written about in reliable third party publications. If there was a book written about Emerald Coast's journey trying to get approved by the ATF you would have a great start toward notability. Does this make sense? If you want to ask me questions on my talk page I'll gladly try to help as best I can.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO i don't get it. I look at all the other beer companys and Emerald Coast is more Notable then 90% of them HELP. I a man goes to the moon that is Notable if the Gov said he went. You make it sound like if the press talks about you it make you Notable? I can make some phone call get the press to wright BS about a company how dose that make it Notable? Notable is in the laws we live by and the law (GOV) said it is one of a kind or one of two. And the name on Wikipedia has been up for 10 months why now? It is becouse I put up more work that is wrong.--Pat Long (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Beer brewing companies in the United States by state|AlabamaAlabama--Pat Long (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that no one is singling you out because you are either new or trying to contribute to the project. I just wanted to make that clear. The idea of notability is that third parties have taken notice of something unique or special about the company and written on the subject (in essence). Let's use your man on the moon example. The moon landing was covered live on television and written about for decades. The idea behind notability isn't just that some paper wrote about something, but it's a start. There being 120 breweries in the United States doesn't actually make any of them notable, but companies that have proved themselves to the public at large or to experts on the subject as being unique will find a place here. Wikipedians need to be able to verify all the information that is presented on the project and without reliable third party sources there is simply not way to separate fact from fiction. Also, the government's approval doesn't make something notable. If we were using that logic every licensed driver, hunter, gun owner, corporation and manufacturer would be notable. Being licensed for business is part of doing business and because a brewery owner decides to go through the process and qualifies just means they're in the game, not that they are somehow worthy of encyclopedic coverage. All that said, maybe you should call the local paper and get a story written on the brewery. Maybe the brewery should send sample product to beer critics... either of those thing would be a good start toward making this article better.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has been done and it is out there. Diamond Bear Brewing Company why are they Notable? and I will make ECBC as notable as they are and if you go to beer companys by States how can you have Alabama and not ECBC????--Pat Long (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Yes I was singling out because I either new or trying to contribute to the project that is what this is about!!!!!!!!!! " a look back at my history"--Pat Long (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing that article to my attention. As you can see I have made preliminary steps toward sourcing and improving the article [30]. I didn't take all of the information I found, but I did link several unique resources that I felt help add both notability and value to the article. Later I hope to expand on the stub and use those sources as in-line citations for the content I write based on the information the links provide.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Someone let me know how you can have Categories about US beer companys and not list all the companys. Or how can you list them by State like Alabama and not have all the beer company in that state. If you wont to say large company you need to come up with the size WIK makes has the CATEGORIES and that is why it should stay *Notable --Pat Long (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are made by editors, just like us. Someone might have wanted to place every brewery in America there, but they might be mistaken and that category or list can easily end up at AFD just the same as your article has.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've done well with this source [31] Just a few more like it and you should be in business.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but that's a blog, and I think blogs are generally not
reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You're right Trav, I thought it was a blog based around some area newspaper called "The Temrinal" but I just read their terms of use and it says anyone can post to it so it's useless as a primary source [32].--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should first remove the Categories not the names in them remove Beer companys in Alabama then make the Name/Company stan on its on.--Pat Long
The categories and everything else need to be evaluated on their own merits. Wikiepdia is not a directory
WP:NOT--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment -
Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping this article. Don't worry about the other companies out there, worry about this one. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Notable Keep You are not right you can't say here is a list of Alabama Beer Companies and then say a company cant be on that list that is an Alabama Beer Co that makes no since. The merits in this case, is there a beer or beer co. the categories was deem notable in it rarity--Pat Long (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category is not a list. A category only determines what kind of article something is. It doesn't need to include every instance of that subject if they are not notable (for example, we could have a category doctors (I don't know if we do) but that doesn't mean every doctor should have an article, just that all articles about doctors should have that category. A list can exist without having an article on every entry of that list. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were two news article by the Birmingham News on Al.com but they dont keep them more they 6 months the info was there when the Name was first added--Pat Long (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried www.archive.org? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a Dr. list (category) is made then it is saying that it is notable the category is a higher point on the pole and makes the name necessary to make the category. You can’t have Alabama Beer and not have a list of them. This is not about Notability it is about is this a real beer/Co. --Pat Long (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, categories just contain articles about subjects that have independently established their notability. Being in a category by no means makes something notable. I could create an article called "Flibbetygibbet" and put it into 10 categories, but that doesn't mean "Flibbetygibbet" isn't nonsense. Categories only exist to make articles easier to find - they provide no information other than what is already in the article.
a/c) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

keep you are right about Flibbetygibbet but if there was a category called Alabama Flibbetygibbet and your Flibbetygibbet was from Alabama you should be in and not out tell the category is DEL and this is the same BS that went on last year and it was ok then. now the Birmingham News site is down so ECBC should come down hell NO and as I said this is about me doing more work if i didn't the ECBC would be up for years to come this is BS and you know it. --Pat Long (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just given Pat Long a warning on NPA/Civil and think perhaps s/he's too close to this. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I seen similar articles; can be expanded. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...when people look back at my past it is personal I have gone thought this before and now you making me do it one moe time each time i post something it starts over this should be about Vulcan Energy Drink not the Beer company then all the start to say delete you should have done that 10 months ago not now. it was ok then. And one thing I hate about this / email is people hide behind it get a phone number and run this like a company I keep looking at all the other beer company and energy drinks and no one from this site has looked at them way? mybe i should mark them for DEL and they can make therer case. ECBC should stay becouse it was ok last year.* Keep --Pat Long (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't OK last year; it just wasn't tagged last year, maybe because it was so
example 3 of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It never works, unless you're trying to attract lots of other people who are watching other articles. --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:
speedy deleted.) --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep both the brewery and the beer. Appears to meet
WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Other opinions

Delete - no
Business' FAQ. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Does this have anything to do with the Emerald Coast Beer Fest? I can't find anything about the brewery itself beyond press releases, which are not good sources for primary sources. Also, their own website isn't even online yet so I'm assuming they are very new. Sometimes it takes time gain notability. If we can't find sources I'd like to suggest Deletion without Prejudice--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent
reliable sources to establish notability and no friend of the owner assertions can counteract that TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ just scrapes by on the terminal article for significant independent coverage. I'll see if I can dig up some more. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to add the Pilsner article into the main article for that source to work without axing one or the other. I still think it needs more sources to meet the standards. I'll keep looking too, but I've been looking for almost two hours today. I don't know if I have the spirit to continue.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the specific beer articles should probably be merged, together with the company article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we found out in the comments section that Terminal source is actually from an open blog that anyone can edit so it's not a reliable source. Just FYI--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And it looked so reliable. Oh well. (actualy, I was too lazy to switch to delete when it first came up it was a blog, and it's starting to snow already, so my keep wouldnt have made much difference. Clearly my argument has evaporated.) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it has plenty of links, they are all either press releases (which are not independently
a/c) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
Not-notable. seicer | talk | contribs 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.
talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No reliable or verifiable sources given. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to me, this article appears to exist for no other reason than to contain a bunch of external links. Last I checked, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. =Axlq 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Pat Long has just received a 31hour block. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret, due to lack of RS asserting notability. Too bad. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent sources plus COI issues - a winning combination. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless sourced). I looked around the Internet and couldn't find any evidence of notability - no significant coverage in reliable sources, no widespread distribution, nothing. Please note that the article's author seems to claim he has found a source[33] so we might want to give that a chance after he/she gets out of their block. Also, if the brewery makes good beer and does well in business, it may well be notable a year from now. Breweries do get a lot of press for the most part so proving notability for a place that is truly notable is usually not that hard. Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both
Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Related matter

Request - Pat long (the recently block vociferous user, below) added the Emerald Coast Beer Company's AfD tag to 15-20 brewery pages, all pointing to this page. It's not clear whether it's spite or some bizarre type of canvassing, but whatever it is those are not good faith or complete AfD nominations. Sorry to ask, and I would do it myself but I'm on an extremely slow speed Internet connection right now, but would someone kindly undo or roll back all of those so it doesn't disrupt things? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears they've all been reverted. Is there one that was missed? I'm happy to rv it as he's been blocked for being
pointy. I'm also moving your comment down below to get it out of the middle of the nom TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks (and thanks for moving the message down here). "what links here" shows that they've all been fixed. I think people were fixing it as I was trying for an hour to get my message to post...it was like life at 300 baud. Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I feel your pain. I was on a slow dialup connection the other day and it took 7 minutes for gMail to load! He's unblocked, I think, so if any others pop up, let me know and I'll revert. Didn't realise he was linking them all here as well, thanks for that heads up TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hansadutta

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hansadutta Das

Articles for deletion/Hansadutta Swami

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

This page should be deleted because it is an invasion of the privacy of Hansadutta.

Keep. That is not a valid reason.--~~Michael White^T·C 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Changing to weak keep - seems to be a notable figure within the Hare Krishna movement, but judging only by the number of mentions (and some articles in whole) about him.--Michael White^T·C 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete Is this guy notable? Perhaps its just a confused article but I read it and still don't know who the person is or why I should care. Would there be articles on each excommunicated Catholic priest?Nick Connolly (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up OK I've changed my mind. Following the links back I see there are articles on 11 'gurus' of apparently similar status to this guy. Presumably if the other 10 people are notable enough for an article the eleventh one is also.PS How do I do strikethrough text?Nick Connolly (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<s> text text text </s> will produce ~~text text text~~ . -- saberwyn 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crossed it for you.
a/c) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep. Not a valid reason for deletion, and I do not see any real
WP:BLP issue. Though given the current state of the article, it's very hard to get a sense of how notable this person is. Reso lute 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article needs a rewrite. The eleven initiating gurus after Prabhupada's death had the same power over ISKON as the Pope does over the Catholic Church. jonathon (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Invalid reason for deletion. Fosnez (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup No valid reason to delete, subject is notable per
a/c) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Hansadutta has notified me and requested that I find a way to remove this page. All the information on this page must have a source and the only information posted online are the negatives of his life. So even though this article does merely site a few facts, the general tone of this article is negative and thus does, in a sense, violate WP:BLP policy. If there was an elaborate detail of this person's life, then the article would be neutral, but it only shows one side, and is therefore not neutral. Additionally, Hansadutta is no-longer a part of ISKCON and is no longer a religious leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivjago (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC) — Jivjago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who can say? THis guy seems to be involved in some spat in HK circles, and it's obvious that the article we have is there to settle some scores. After that, I lose interes.....Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he was one of the 11 regional leaders, he's notable, regardless of subsequent religious splits. Whether the "general tone" is negative, requires expert attention to maintain NPOV. Nothing is asserted regarding errors that would justify removal asunder BLP. DGG (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article asserts notability and is sourced. No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lac du Bois

Lac du Bois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing this here for discussion on the remaining Concordia Language Villages' individual programs. As a whole, there's nothing notable about the individual programs, although the overall Concordia Language Villages is probably notable under the proposed schools guidelines and I'm not advocating the deletion of that. But there's nothing encyclopedic about the individual articles and most of the content is more oriented toward website content/infomation rather than an enyclopedia. They could be re-written, if they were notable. There's nothing to distinguish them from any other language program and or make them notable outside the overal l Concordia program. I don't think a merge is appropriate as there's too much extraneous info (talking in parts about the geography of the camp, which is the same across the articles) and I don't think they're plausible search terms as a redirect because they all apparently (from the languages I understand) mean "Lake in the Woods". So for the same reason I'm including the following related articles:

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

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

Mori no Ike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Al-Waha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The rest have all been previously deleted, mostly speedy it seems but none fit an apparent speedy criteria. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concordia Language Villages, probable merge all there. Sacre bleu! Takes me back to two summers at Lac du Bois/Camp Holiday in the 1970s. The whole shebang is definitely notable -- I know they have a great record creating language teachers, if not always the claimed world leaders. But individual camps, while several could well be sourced if someone wanted to take the time, wouldn't have that much unique information. I would almost view them the same as dorms or language-based houses on a college campus. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, making it clear. I didn't mean for CLV to be included, that's notable as the 'parent' organization for lack of a better word. I just mentioned it to give the orgs context. I agree with your assessment that they're akin to dorms/language houses but I don't know that the content would fit in the parent org without bogging it down in minutiae of the individual programs and redundant content. Maybe merge and trim heavily. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't mean to add to the confusion. Perhaps a List of Concordia Language Villages camps? --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Nationally known special program camps. I've !voted to delete almost all camp articles brought here, but these ones are notable. They are more than language houses, they are separate establishments. But I'm not sure of the best organisation for the material --perhaps the different language programs are more important than the physical locations,since these arer really just subprograms with the overall system. . DGG (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Country Cyclones

Lake Country Cyclones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"are a semi-pro football team" the team is not fully professional, nor is the league in which they play. I believe they fail WP:CORP for non-commercial orgs (Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.) as there is trivial RS coverage and there activities don't extend beyond the immediate area. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails
WP:ORG. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page is uneccesary.
Metal Gear (weapon) all have disambiguation links to each other. —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Perfectly logical argument for me. Delete. - Chardish (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Digging a little deeper there are many more articles than just those 3. The disambiguation should stand as there is a
Metal Gear Solid, and Metal Gear Acid. I've added them to the DAB page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that the Solid and Acid entries you added shouldn't be part of this dab page as they are not known as solely "Metal Gear" (I guess). See
MoS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. I have therefore marked the page with {{disambig-cleanup}}. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I saw that. Since the revival of the Metal Gear series, the games have been referred to mainly as Metal Gear games, even if they are Solid or Acid designation. So, I think its debatable as to whether or not they should appear on the dab. Also, checking there is no disambig for
Metal Gear Solid. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I still think it should be deleted. When one is looking for "
Metal Gear (series), one can find links to all those articles. Metal Gear (series) acts as a better link to all these other pages than Metal Gear (disambiguation). Unless someone finds a page with the word "Metal Gear" that does not relate to this series in any way, there is no need to have a disambiguation page. It seems pointless to have a disambiguation for things that are all related. Maybe it would be better to have "Metal Gear" redirect to Meatal Gear (series) and rename the page for the original game to something like "Metal Gear (orginal game)" or "Metal Gear (first game)". —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that bse3is the AFD nominator. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix the articles mentioned in the nomination to point here, per MOS advice about dab pages. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix per User:Percy Snoodle. If there were only the 3 pages mentioned in the nom then it would be a toss-up, but the dab page has 8 blue links at present, and that's too many to hatnote. This is exactly why dab pages are used. User:bse3 is clearly familiar with the content and knows how to navigate directly, but we shouldn't assume the same for other users. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As a regular dab editor, I have no expressed preference whether to use two hatnotes or have a separate dab page. I am unfamiliar with the franchise, but it seems that per
Metal Gear (series) (where they are already listed). So I see the dab page as a little redundant but not explicitely deletion-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries that states that a dab page with as few as two entries, though not necessary, is acceptable. Gwguffey (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

keep - if in doubt, always keep.
Abtract (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep as expanded (and, as noted, it would have been acceptable before too). -- ~~JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. No article links to the page, and the existing hatnotes on the "main" pages handle the disambiguation well enough. No reader will be served by the disambiguation page in the current arrangement, nor underserved by its absence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you probably already saw from the edit history, many of those links were added this week. I'll try to go and add links to the disambig for other pages. However, I believe "No reader will be served by the disambiguation page in the current arrangement" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page that serves no reader should be deleted; if not, what is sufficient for disambiguation page deletion? They aren't articles to be checked for notability, etc. I'm also not sure to which pages you're proposing to add links to the disambiguation page -- unless it's to replace the current hatnotes on the base name, series, and weapon. If there is consensus to use a dab page instead of the "two other uses" type hatnote, that'd be a reason to keep the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot stress Delete enough. A good comparison to this is
Metal Gear (weapon) all have Template:Metal Gear at the bottom to serve the same purpose, making Metal Gear (disambiguation) useless. —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The question is whether people searching for the term "metal gear" want to end up on the article for the 1987 videogame or somewhere else. --Pixelface (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galwegian Power Thrash

Galwegian Power Thrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music genre - probably localized, regional or underground. Unreferenced, likely a
neologism. Searching yields almost nothing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnotbale. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evans High School (Georgia)

Evans High School (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from being highly POV and including trivial information like the years various teams won championships, fails WP:SCHOOL for its lack of reliable encyclopedic material. Biruitorul (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The championship data is best understood as an assertion of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large high school. Multiple state sports championships and alumni clearly establishes notability. Plenty of secondary sources available for article expansion too.
talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It definitely needs some rewriting for tone, and to get rid of alot of trivia, but the overall subject is article-worthy. --El on ka 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
TerriersFan pretty much summed it up. It's not a great article yet, but deletion isn't the answer and WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed policy that still doesn't seem to have a consensus. HDow (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as additions to article since nomination have made this a pass for
WP:N. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and cleanup The athletics section is a tad long and there's not much information on the rest of the school, however it is certainly notable.
a/c) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Easily meets the second primary criteria of WP:SCHOOL Adam McCormick (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as notable. That Athletics section is irritating, should be converted from a billboard to a list.
talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I gave my best effort at fixing the list. The article is like a sports organization with a school attached.
talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbrier High School

Greenbrier High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from being absurdly POV and looking like a promotional brochure, fails WP:SCHOOL for its lack of reliable encyclopedic material. Biruitorul (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - large high school. Article needs work but that is an editorial, not an AfD, issue. Multiple state sports championships clearly establish notability together with the many secondary sources available for article expansion.
talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
TerriersFan pretty much summed it up. It's not a great article yet, but deletion isn't the answer and WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed policy that still doesn't seem to have a consensus. HDow (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for failure to establish
notability. - Chardish (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. This is the school that suspended a student for wearing a Pepsi t-shirt on Coke Day. Greenbrier is a poster child for corporate sponsorship of schools. Just a small sample of the coverage: Michael Moore, Associated Press, S.F. Examiner, Teacher Education Quarterly, The Independent and plenty of books. • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plenty notable from what I see. A valid high school stub. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, expand to include more information about the above mentioned suspension and remove the POV problems, of which there are a few. School is notable, though, and the article is not so far gone that it can't be fixed.
a/c) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep invalid nomination. The cited proposed guideline that the nominator is using as the basis for deletion actually says that all high schools are considered notable unless there is no encyclopedic content. It does not use the word reliable, which implies a requirement for cited sources. Encyclopedic content means that content about which prose can be written, which is contrasted to listing-only information. This school passes. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that just your definition of "encyclopedic", or is there a policy that distinguishes between it and "reliable"? Biruitorul (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not performed by the closing admin. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Powell

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

Fails
talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to Neopets.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Neopets. No evidence of individual notability. JJL (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. Per comments above. Renee (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Neopets. --Pixelface (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this person looks more notable than
~~Donna Williams (web designer). --Pixelface (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Williams (web designer)

Donna Williams (web designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Fails
WP:BIO. The notability of Neopets does not inherit to one of its creators, and she has received no significant coverage outside of Neopets. Only source is Neopets press kit and Neopets related events. Collectonian (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Neopets. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Neopets. The Google News archives show 15 hits for "donna williams" "adam powell". And I disagree that a notable creation means the creator is non-notable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neopets. There is insufficient third-party coverage to indicate that this person is notable outside of that particular site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesis

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

Previously speedy deleted, subsequently recreated. Possible hoax. To afd for review. — ERcheck (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if real, not enough information for a useful article. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has all the hallmarks of a hoax. It is vague and unreferenced. It claims coverage by a RS but in such a way as to be unverifiable. Googling Sesis microsoft or Sesis microsoft hardware gives the article as the third and first hits respectively and shows nothing that corroborates the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources given to verify info and my attempts to find somee.g. on Google failed to come up with anything relevant. Qwfp (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. AndreNatas (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it smells like a hoax. By the way, Sesis is a name in the
First Book of Esdras; he is one of the sons of Ozoras (as if that were helpful). Michael Kinyon (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Salt per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I was able to improve the article's grammar, I was unable to find sources. Sincerley, --
Tally-ho! 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW --JForget 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Scene (style)

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

This article doesn't cite a single source at all (despite its creator's claim that "This is all fact and should not be removed from Wikipedia at all"), and is made up of pure original research and speculation. If there is going to be an article on Wikipedia on what "scene" entails, it needs to cite reliable sources. As it is, there's none. TheLetterM (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. --Prewitt81 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the one hand, I am familiar, at least in passing, with the subject of this article and it seems to me that, with a little work, this could be a passable treatment of the subject. On the other hand, I am not a verifiable secondary source, so I cannot provide verifiablity to any of the article's contents. Further, even if everything in the article were verifiable, scene (in this sense) is still a neologism, and no proof of notability is offered. However, this article is very new (less than a day) so perhaps some time should be given for appropriate references to be cited; if they are not then deletion may well be the proper course of action. OlenWhitaker (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unreferenced, seemingly
=/\= | 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No refs, unverifiable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an original synthesis not supported by sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one of those who might be called "scene", I think this article could go somewhere. The scene image/"lifestyle" is very prevalent in today's youth, and I think this warrants some kind of article. This needs to be cleaned up a lot, however. --06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boadrummer (talk • contribs)

Prevalent or not, this article cites no sources. Remember that inclusion in Wikipedia is dependent on

sources that can be relied on and are pertinent to the article. AFDs usually run five days since they're started, that should be enough time for anyone who wants to save this article to find sources. TheLetterM (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - pure original research. I thought "scene" was a generic term (e.g. metal scene, techno scene, indie scene, etc.) - apparently there's a specific scene?
Yet the article gives me no way of knowing for sure - Chardish (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Keep - This Article is less than a day old, The author should be given a chance to make it into something before we go deleting it.--~~A^xcess (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Obviously pasted in, the first revision had several broken links, which seems like pretty good evidence this was copied from an article deleted in the past.--A^xcess (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I swear I've seen this article at AFD before in the past month. Let me look into it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm I guess I was wrong, it must have been something different.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hah I stand corrected from my correction. I believe this article is related to [34] and all the previously deleted relatives thereof [35]. I can't say it's a recreation of deleted content, but the opening comment in the edit history makes it appear as though the editor is expecting an AFD.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's true. When the page was created the author added a preemtive strike against an expected deletion to the edit summary. This seems to indicate that even the author suspected that this article was not up to Wikipedia standards. That hardly helps its case. He would have been better off to have said nothing and acted surprised when the AfD came up. OlenWhitaker (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem to explain any specific movement, just that there is a "fashion scene". I agree in total with Chardish.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban dictionary and myspace are the least reliable places aywhere. No notability is really established and it is more of a neologism. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
Original research/personal essay. — ERcheck (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete and Salt this crap keeps reappearing and needs to gotten rid of once and for all. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's more than a whiff of original research about this, and reading the Urban Dictionary page linked from the article, it seems as though the article is the result of a misunderstanding anyway. That is to say, the UD page seems to talk about "Scene Kids" as "those who slavishly follow a given scene [of which there are several]", while this article talks about them as if all of these scenes are one and the same. Or something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Let it
WP:SNOW baby!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Harsh I think my last comment was a little harsh, but I still think someone could close this down without controversy at this point. No disrespect meant to the "keep" editors.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Apparently, some of the content on the page is a direct copy of one of the definitions on UrbanDictionary. I think that that's probably grounds for speedy delete under copyright infringement (even if the purported UD link is in the links section), but it should probably just wait the rest of the 5 days until it's deleted. I wouldn't be against a snowy delete, though. TheLetterM (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Azaria Chamberlain disappearance --JForget 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Erin Horsburgh

)

Individual notable only for her claims to be

WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's adequatly covered in
Azaria Chamberlain disappearance then Redirect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect -- to
Azaria Chamberlain disappearance. - Longhair\^talk 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect -- to
Azaria Chamberlain disappearance per the above and BLP1E, "cover the event..." content is redundant TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The current article only gives a little information on her. Copy the content of her article into a new section, then I'd say Redirect. Celarnor (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This means that if someone entered Erin Horsburgh they'd get directed to the Azaria Chamberlain page? This is a good solution. Renee (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An A to Z Walk In the Park

Sole ghit is a wiki draft. It's borderline copyvio from one 'reference' and the other two don't appear to mention it. Possible COI from creator but zero evidence of notability. Can be re-created when/if it becomes notable upon publication. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was about to nom it myself for the same reasons. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an upcoming book. I am the author. Is this the wrong thing to do? What do you mean by borderline copyright violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsgd (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article text is copied almost verbatim from the website, that's the borderline copyright violation. Also since you're the author you need to be aware of the

notability guidelines especially for books. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops! Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsgd (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnotbable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Stanson

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

Non-notable teenage singer-songwriter. No

WP:MUSIC. The link to Island Records throws up a 'HTTP 404 Not Found' error and the Daily Mail reference links to a story about Keira Knightley! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails
WP:MUSIC. --Prewitt81 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:MUSIC and possible hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~. Although being a frequent editor of this article, I must admit that this article fails to comply with
WP:MUSIC. At the moment at least. Very unlikely to be a hoax (edit: Upon a better inspection, even the "press release" photo looks kinda badly Photoshopped :D, and the given links (Island Records and Daily Mail) do not exist indeed. Delete it for now, but I'll set it up again when Lewis becomes notable for his music :D Alvin (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This user changed his mind below...

Keep Although this article does not yet hold any reliable sources to support information stated, the basis is of it is in fact true. I work for Universal Music Publishing in London I can confirm that Stanson has been signed, but there was no press release held on March 7th in London - it would of been strange, as he's currently in the USA. Consider keeping the article as a basic stub, but do delete any irrelavent information. —Preceding
few or no other edits
outside this topic.

Delete, non-notable. Has yet to release anything to confirm notability.
^{tell me a joke...} 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agree that this article is not yet notable, but I'm an avid fan on his YouTube page and he was on TV for about 2 mins when they interviewed him at Brit Awards after party. I think as said above it's a good idea to just keep it as a stub, because it's only a matter of time before he gets more publicity. few or no other edits
outside this topic.

Note This comment was incorrectly signed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept, but only the small section that is supported by sources. This guy has a signed a record deal cause they were talking about it on bbc radio lincolnshire and congratulating him. There was also a piece written about him in the evening telegraph music/gig section. Don't delete, Lewis is awesome! (
no other edits
outside this AfD.

Keep Very tricky. As a fan I'm saying don't delete this, because the stated information is true, but someone (or some freak fan) has been taking these photos off his myspace photo albums and photoshopping them - which is very sad! Delete all sections apart from the very first paragraph (getting his deal) etc and also delete all photos cause they're clearly fake. The boy has a hell of a voice though. — Preceding
no other edits
outside this AfD.

Keep I have changed my mind guys, I think this article should stay but I do think that the person who added the pics should be at least warned. In the mean time I will just continue revamping the article as I planned. Alvin (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI'm not a fan, I've never heard his music or visited his youtube page. All I know is what I've been researching to establish sources of notability and I can't find anything. There seems to be no reasonable press coverage at all on this artist. It fails
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep completely unverifiable article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Addition Also,I want to address the people saying "he has a record deal but it's not public yet" Well, that may be true... but even if they make it public it doesn't satisfy the guidelines. Just because an artist is signed isn't good enough for
WP:MUSIC it clearly says, in relation to record deals... "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep To be fair I also saw the short (itwas more like 40 seconds) interview with him at the Brits after-party and he just confirmed that he signed a deal and was going to be recording soon. It doesn't yet qualify for a wikipedia page, so I think it should be either deleted until further information comes available or reduced to a stub. I had to use a keep vote sign because I love his voice so much!! lol — Preceding
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned
comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

There seems to be a lot of Single Purpose Account voting going around. Not an attack on anyone, just something to note for the closing admin.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fan comments do not establish notability per WP:MUSIC, which this unfortunately doesn't have. It can be re-created when/if it does. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Myspace and youtube are not reliable sources. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gottesman

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

Mainly notability, appears autobiographical, only one (weak) source that was not created by the subject. Beach drifter (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tries very hard, but at the end of day - fails
WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non notable musician. Only two references provided are from non-reliable sources and are only trivial coverage. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Optigan13 stated only references are mainly non-reliable. Does not meet W:BIO Ozgod (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits in Norway

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

User:Ulflarsen prodded with the comment: "A near identic article on the Norwegian bokmål/riksmålswikipedia were recently removed as the major Norwegian newspaper VG in a mail claimed that the article were a violation of it's right to the material, it has been compiled from that, so the article should be deleted here as well" and then User:Nsaa added an AfD notice. Technical nomination only. I cannot tell if this is a copyvio or not. Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been deleted on Norwegian Wikipedia
Pop 100 number-one hits of 2007 (USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsaa (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. They don't have a copyright on facts.--Michael White^T·C 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have emailed with the newspaper and they were quite clear on that they have the right to this information. I have also emailed VG and informed them that there is a similar list as the one that were deleted here on the bokmål/riksmålswikipedia her on the english language version of Wikipedia. According to Norwegian law we can cite from an article in a newspaper, but the whole article can not be copied without consent from the news organisation and this is a similar situation. The VG list is compiled by the newspaper VG with the main record organisation in Norway and such can not be compared to facts like the Nobel Prize, heads of state etc. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article contains purely factual information. If prose had been copied from elsewhere then copyvio would be an issue, but I can't see how anyone can reasonably claim copyright over a list like this.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this list has no sources but I suppose it was written from Verdens Gang because the list says "This list shows all the songs that has been number one on the official chart list in Norway, VG-lista." The info can also be seen at http://norwegiancharts.com/bestall.asp. http://norwegiancharts.com/ said on June 15, 2006 "From now on, we are allowed to publish the "VG-Lista - the official Norwegian hit-chart" here. Thanks to VG for the agreement." If there is some copyright issue it may also apply to the articles VG-lista 1958, VG-lista 1959, VG-lista 1960, VG-lista 1961, VG-lista 1962, VG-lista 1963, and VG-lista 2006. --Pixelface (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Verdens Gang never claimed any copyvio against Wikipedia but the article was deleted because a few users were overly precarious and believed they had made such a claim. The email say it might be a copyright violation, not that it is a copyright violation. The article is a compilation of published facts and as such is within the "right to quote" in Norway. The article is not produced by leeching the database, which is not legal in Norway. I don't think the last point has any relevance here, and only the first one apply. The articles VG-lista 1958, etc, might be closer to a possible copyvio as they seems to be complete copies for each years. Jeblad (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously encyclopedic - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Harrywad (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly encyclopedic, and a list of hits is not a copyright violation. The unlinked artists should be linked, as they are all obviously notable. Chubbles (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as everything is legal and all, it should be kept. Notable and not bad enough to warrant a deletion. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3 New Convenant and Human Weapons

Halo 3 New Convenant and Human Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to have been recreated at Halo 3 Human/Covenant Weapons. KnightLago (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, that i screwed up the title on that page, so i created that other page, so i'm fine with that duplicate page being deleted. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the following related pages because this page contains the same info with a different page title:

Halo 3 Human/Covenant Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list of weapons. This is gamecruft garbage, pure and simple, violates
WP:V. Prod removed by author with no explanation. JuJube (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If you actually looked at the discussion, then you would see my post. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Not convinced. Please see aforementioned policies before getting a snarky attitude. (Also, change your sig, it is just too damn long.) JuJube (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was deleting without explanation, and deleting for a reason that you don't agree with become the same thing? I also reserve the right to make my signature as long as I want, as long as it follows Wikipedia policy, which it does.I would also like a specific quote from those two policies that this article violates.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a manual, guidebook or textbook" and "Not an indiscriminate collection of information" for the first part, and basically all of the second link. Now stop being the peanut gallery. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't this content be a part of the main Halo article? There's not enough substance here for it to stand up by itself. Quanticle (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that option better than total deletion, I still think that it doesn't violate the wikipedia policies.Also, bungie isn't exactly an unknown company, I'm pretty sure that they are a reliable source, so the second policy doesnt apply. And for the first policy, explain how this article is a manual, guide book or textbook.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cite any sources that describe the weapons, so yes it does apply. And if you can't see how this is a game guide, I would question your reading skills. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at my citations section? Its at the bottom of the page. Both websites describe the weapons. As i stated before, i am merely stating the differences in features between halo 3 and the preceding games in the series, and in this case, the features are the new weapons. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is game guide material. It reads like something out of either a game guide or instruction manual. Policy
WP:NOT#GUIDE indicates that it should not be included. The article features no citations, making it impossible to claim verifiability or notability. Additionally, Oppose merge into Halo 3, as I do not feel it would add to a already FA rated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Citation added, more to come. And this is not a "game guide" it is merely stating and describing new features that this sequel to Halo and Halo 2 had that they don't, and in this case the features are new weapons. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOR.--Wolfer68 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, deleted all personal opinion. If their are any more policy violations tell me and i will change it.Why is bungie not a reliable source? Also, i'd like to comment that the list of number one hits in norway two spaces above this article has gotten one keep.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if i havnt already made my vote clear. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "A vast improvement from Halo 2, you are no longer a sitting duck for those trigger happy snipers with the new option of detaching turrets. You can swiftly take out enemy troops with the hail of bullets, and evade theirs on the move." Sure sounds like a game guide to me. Maxa megalon 2000 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious game guide content; indefensibly so. - Chardish (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki anyone?~~--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Halo 3 Wiki has this one covered already
Well, that's that then. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT

Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting notability and is a guide and FAQ that has already been covered at the Halo Wiki; so there is no need to run it through the deletion process here as of
talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete just close it and kill the article RogueNinja_talk 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if I was an Admin I would delete this article and suggest that any encyclopedic data be added to the main Halo 3 article.--
talk) 04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - the Halo universe is very popoular and there are undoubtedly sufficient guide-books, game commentarties, etc. that can be used as references for this facts about the game. Johntex\^talk 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only
indiscriminate information. Nothing worth merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iga A.

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe that the references cited are sufficient to establish notability. Simply appearing in a magazine is not the same as having actual press coverage. I once appeared in a picture on the front page of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram but that does not make me a notable person and would not even if I had a 34E bust. OlenWhitaker (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magazine cited as the source is a uk Lads Mag, Nuts. These magazines are notorious for making articles up, If they can't get hold of the models and a deadline is looming the they just write what they want. For the Americans amongst us this is almost as bad as somone saying "I read it in The Enquirer". The Website i cited as a source is the Official Iga Wyrwal website, currently under devolopment, My Source is Iga Wyrwal. This issue came about because i was in a rush for content, i used the original details on the wiki, I was immediately informed by Iga that the details were wrong. In short i basically said she was a year older , an inch shorter , An inch wider and a cup size smaller. Pretty much the the four things you should never say to a woman! She gave me the correct details , i edited the page and we've been going round in circles ever since. It was also note that She shot for the American Playboy not the UK one. The name issue is a strange one. The daily Star changed her name to Eva & eve without her consent , as they thought it would be easier to pronounce, this causes much confusion, For the record She prefers to be Iga or Iga A. Iga Wyrwal also known as Eva Wyrwal is acceptable, I can provide proof of the information & the validity of the source but i'm not prepared to do so on a public forum, i have included it wit the mail i sent DigitalWebDev (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not sufficiently establish notability per
WP:BIO nor are there sufficient sources provided yet. If Iga A. becomes more famous in the future, the article can be re-created at that time, presumably by which time she will be referred to in the press by the same name consistently. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It would take some study to figure out if Nuts magazine is a reliable source. Before going that far, it is easier just to observe that models fall under the 'performer' clause of
WP:BIO
.
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Clearly Iga A. has not passed that threshold yet. If she makes a noticeable impact an article might be considered later. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet
WP:BIO. Ozgod (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet
WP:BIO.--Fredrick day (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - NN-Bio - Alison ^❤ 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-12t
12:28z

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empörung

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

Unverified article about a non-notable band. Was PRODDED, but an IP objected. So I'll bring here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been unable to find sources for this article in Google News [40][41]. Plain Google searches are troublesome, as the band name is German for outrage, but a look at the first 30 results of a search for [Empörung band] only two hits, this Wikipedia article, and the wikipedia article for the one-band genre Galwegian black metal (also at AfD). -- saberwyn 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No verifiablilty + no notability = no reason to be on Wikipedia. OlenWhitaker (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Even by the low standards of articles in this genre, this is poor. No notability.--Michig (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above lack of any significant coverage or evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as recreation (I tagged for A7) Will ^(talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoP!

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

WP:AD - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a marginal case. If a verifiable reference or source were cited to back up the assertion that it is "a big hit is Scandanavia[,]" then it might be salvageable, but as the article stands now it does not appear to meet either verifiablity or notability standards so I would have to say: delete. OlenWhitaker (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the claims of the article can be proven by independent sources, keep. If not, delete. --
^Holla! 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Ompagniet, the band. Although I'm not sure about the latter's notability either. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HEY HEY HEY I always try to assume good faith, but a certain
talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator - please don't post your opinion twice, it makes it difficult to find consensus.
a/c) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Sorry, on a different AfD I was told my nom vote didn't count because I didn't actually "vote" (again). I'll keep this double standard in mind in the future. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered that the nominator is automatically a "vote" for deletion unless stated otherwise. Feel free to contact me if you think someone else misinformed you, perhaps I can check it out & clear it up... — Scientizzle 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point--your use of "per nom" is confusing, as that actually means (in wiki-parlance) that you substantially agree with the statement provided by the nominator. If you had said "as nom" instead, it would have been clearer. — Scientizzle 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, possibly a hoax, definately qualifies under
WP:NFT. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sounds like a huge hoax, and is a self-confessed
a/c) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ompagniet - no notability on its own. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Delete is Scandinavia...i mean Delete. no verification of relationship with
hoax. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per
WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Galwegian black metal

Galwegian black metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music genre - probably localized, regional or underground. Searching for the terms yields literally nothing apart from Wikipedia.[42] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — zero evidence of being a notable musical genre. Appears to be a
neologism of little note. --Haemo (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Even the article itself admits there is only one band that falls in this genre (which means it is not a genre at all) and that reference is itself highly suspect and smacks of self-promotion. OlenWhitaker (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That band, Empörung, is also up for deletion. -- saberwyn 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Galwegian Black Metal to this discussion, as it is an identical copy of Galwegian black metal. -- saberwyn 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View AfD
)

Delete both. unnotable and possible quasi-hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as recreation (I tagged for A7) Will ^(talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting notability, has already been deleted once, and is either a hoax or extremely localized and underground; so there is no need to run it through the deletion process yet another time as of
talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Tunes

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

Non-notable individual. Fails
WP:NOTE. [43] and [44] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Also possible
WP:COI given the author's user name. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' per above. I don't blame the kid for tryin' though; at least some effort has gone into Wikifying the thing. -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete give the kid some more credit, he just removed the AfD notice...
talk) 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

so much for assuming good faith. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is kind if confusing, but if he's part of Mas Flow Inc. then Trim/Merge/Redirect there. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no independent sources that indicate that he passes
WP:BIO. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree with the nominator and fellow editors; does not meet
WP:BIO Ozgod (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting notability, and is a hoax so there is no need to run it through the deletion process as of
talk) 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
a/c) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mockingbird Don't Sing

Mockingbird Don't Sing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely sourceless (other than a Variety review -- and they review EVERYTHING), plot synopsis-heavy article on an independent film. No evidence or hint of any actual real-world notice or impact. Calton | Talk 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If anyone voting "keep" has something other than
WP:ILIKEIT, let's hear it: actual reliable sources with actual information upon which can be based more than a directory-style listing with a plot summary might be a start, or some evidence that someone, somewhere, has done more than noted its existence or that it's had even some minimal impact on the world at large. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep two other reviews available via IMDb, positive statements about Kim Darby's work in it, relates to a real-world event. JJL (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on a true story" =/= "actually notable", as notability isn't transferable. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has sources; has sources stating it is a based on a real-life event. --
Pbroks13 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What "sources" would that be? --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above.
matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, three independent reviews so it passes
WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Some tiny sign that someone besides a few movie reviewers or DVD sellers care about this, that it has made the tiniest splash in the film community at the very least, or that sources exist that do more than regurgitate plot summaries.

Further, the existence of a couple of movie reviews only indicate that someone reviewed the movie and pretty much nothing else. And you'll note that the New York Times review, just added, actually isn't: it's a plain listing page with the "review" text from the All-Movie Guide", so that "independent review, well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above --
^Holla! 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note The film also won an award at the Rhode Island International Film Festival for best screenplay. [45] For An Angel (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it came in tied for second for best screenplay, receiving "First Prize" while the winner received "Grand Prize." It's certainly not a "major award for excellence" per
WP:MOVIE.--Michael White^T·C 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I know, and I mentioned in the article that it was a tie. "Major" is subjective, but it's still more than plenty of other movies that don't win a single award. For An Angel (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't especially like the trend of article creation for seemingly every banal film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it (though the discussion isn't quite going as I would have liked it to). OK, so Variety reviewed it, like they do most films, and it's in the IMDb, a site the very purpose of which is to list all films ever made (and, keep in mind, IMDb ≠ Wikipedia). Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of box-office success, no particularly notable actors (Kim Darby doesn't fit the bill), no claim to any sort of cultural impact (in response to Dhartung asking "What policy requires this?":
WP:IAR, quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of this article isn't helping, which is why it should go, even if it happens not to transgress WP:FICT.), a director who's a redlink... So why? Why on earth keep an article on such a film? No real reason; let the IMDb do it - that's what they're there for. Biruitorul (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You know whenever a comment begins with "
WP:IAR. For An Angel (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the trend toward keeping articles on irrelevant films I don't especially like, not the film itself. I certainly can cite WP:IAR when it helps us build a better encyclopedia, particularly as that is a core principle, while WP:FICT is merely a proposed policy. Wikipedia records, rather than creates, reality, so the film's presence on pl.wiki is irrelevant. A Dutch site (no evidence of its notability) reviewed it - and? The fact it was straight-to-DVD indicates it probably isn't that important. Moreover, yes, obscure directors sometimes make great films (
Jack Conway made Libeled Lady - but then again, he had dozens of directorial and acting credits, while this guy has but a handful), but again, it's a hint this film is probably not of encyclopedic calibre. With all due respect to Rhode Island, what film awards are given there likely don't have much resonance either. So in sum, yes, the film is quite banal and, because its presence here detracts from the project's seriousness, we should invoke IAR to eliminate it, whether or not it satisfies proposed policy WP:FICT. Biruitorul (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - adequate for Wikipedia. I don't see how having sourced factual content hurts us one bit. This is sourced and won an award; that's enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets established notability standards. IAR has never been good enough to keep an article, so I'd expect something stronger to delete one.Zagalejo^^^ 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I initially leaned towards delete, but I am now satisfied that the three reviews contain sufficient critical commentary to qualify as significant coverage under notability guidelines. I don't think, however, that the second-place award it won at a minor film festival establishes notability, or that the Polish Wikipedia article can be cited as evidence of being known internationally.--Michael White^T·C 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that either of those by itself was enough to establish notability but, together with the critic reviews, they do help, however little. For An Angel (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs more sources, but at least it has a couple. - Chardish (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are valid and it's even won an award, this is clearly a keep IMHO.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ban deletionists instead. There is no evidence or hint of any actual positive real-world notice or impact from deletionists. I don't especially like the trend of article deletion for seemingly every WP:IDONTLIKEIT film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it. Deletionists are referred to in the media as making Wikipedia worse. Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of success, no particularly notable members.
WP:IAR, quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of deletionists isn't helping, which is why they should go. So why? Why on earth keep people who are trying to destroy Wikipedia sourced accurate content that hurts no one? No real reason. Let them go to Facebook - that's what they're there for. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Well done, I admit - but do see
WP:NOHARM. Biruitorul (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article basically blanked out--JForget 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aladygma

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

blatant speculation Will ^(talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. "Maybe someday" sequels are not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete At some point an article about a Cloverfield sequel might be appropriate, but it is obvious that everything is speculation at this point. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:CRYSTAL. Ale_Jrb ^talk 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete --Hermaphrodito (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimous consensus.(
NAC) -Icewedge (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

YouTorrent

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

really not-notable - Torrentz has done the job for years before YouTorrent. AFDing due to possible notability Will ^(talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With a cursory search, I was able to find this Business Week article which is a substantial piece on YouTorrent. Given that the article is 4 days old, I've tagged it as unreferenced, and think it should be given some time for improvement before being brought directly to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Business week article is reliable source and establishes notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious notability. Celarnor (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find substantial amounts of material with a quick Google search. -Icewedge (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Back to the Future trilogy. Sufficient time has been given for this article to have found third-party sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject material. --Haemo (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Back to the Future timeline

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline

Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd nomination)

Back to the Future timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This list/article has been nominated for deletion twice, and kept. That said, this article clearly has problems. For example, I'm guessing that the number of {{
fact}} tags runs to about 200. The sourced ones aren't as good either, containing a hodgepodge of film synthesis and historical synthesis. While time travel in the film series is important, there is little internal and no external sourcing at all (and if the theme is important, there should be books to corroborate the timeline). For all these reasons, the article should be deleted, but with no prejudice towards a new, cited version Will ^(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

i say the article should be kept, just becuase it may be a mess, but i find it useful to understanding the movies. LukeTheSpook (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was nominated for deletion only two months ago. Wikipedia does not have a deadline.
talk) 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fifteen months ago. It hasn't improved the objections since then. There's a time where you have to go beyond "no deadline" and think "okay, this has been in a terrible state for ages". Will ^(talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, see
talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Deletion is not necessary to properly reference the article. The "citation needed" tags are numerous, but most of the article references the film and novelizations as primary sources (not much else you can do with a fictional topic), and these can be referenced likewise. The time travel theory and a similar version of the diagram are referenced from a comprehensive Starlog article on the topic. --Canley (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *I personally think that it's an article with little purpose and no guidelines. There are assumptions and presumptions all over. But I think the nominator is cutting him/herself down; to suggest deleting the article without prejudice for a new version means the nominator does not think the article should be deleted. Deletion is not a solution for poor writing. The article should only be AfDed if the nominator thinks the TOPIC is not worth keeping. That said, I think the topic is too much fan-interpretation for its own good, relys on stuff like creator commentary that some people may or may not feel is canonic, and the topic itself is fairly unencyclopedic. TheHYPO (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure
synthesis. The existence of another website that covers this material means that the information will not be lost to humanity. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
Tally-ho! 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you explain your rationale? It reads to me that you're !voting keep because it's being repeatedly nominated, which, as you've shown, is a bad argument, and actually is a good reason why it should be renominated. Will ^(talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous keep decision I believe came in January of 2008, i.e. just over a month ago. So, the example from the link that I see as problematic is "Delete I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted." The article works a sub-article of a major franchise and is not original research, because it does not offer any kind of original thesis. It presents verfiable information relevant to a noteworthy film series in a straightforward encyclopedic manner. I see no gain for Wikipedia if the article is deleted; rather only editors potentially frustrated and a diminishment in our overall quality as a reference guide. Plus, because the film series is all about time travel, a timeline actually seems particularly relevant in this instance. This is exactly what Wikipedia is here for. Regards, --
Tally-ho! 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No, your article turns out fine. It's your citations, Marty! Something has to be done about your citations! OK, forgetting for a moment that it's been nominated before, Will's point is that a lot of this stuff is "citation-needed" conjecture that not only is unsourced, but can't be sourced. We don't really know when Emmett Brown was born (article assumes he was 65 years old in 1985), and I've never been sure how they got that Marty McFly is "Martin Seamus McFly" (the mention of ancestor Seamus didn't seem to spark any reaction in Marty in BTTF3). If anyone were to boldly take out the stuff that someone was just guessing at, there's not as much of a timeline. It's the kind of original research that is kind of fun to read and fun for other editors to contribute to, sure, but if it's to remain in an encyclopedia, then the not-as-fun job of sticking to citations has to be followed as well. Mandsford (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PLOT. This is all in-universe plot summary with no independant real-world analysis (besides a smidge of speculation by some guy in the "Theory" section). Seriously, the films aren't that complicated, and it's not what Wikipedia is here for. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:OR. This list is a combination of fictional elements and historical facts, but together they make an original synthesis. The article subject (the actual timeline of the movies) has not been demonstrated to be notable independently of the movies themselves, and the subject is already sufficiently dealt with in the context of the individual Plot sections in each movie article. EDIT And now that the article has been appropriately transwikied, the reasons to keep this article here are even less. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ While merging might be an option, total deletion shouldn't be. I'm guessing the citeneeded stuff is either speculation or from non-canon sources (maybe the cartoon), and can easily be removed. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge. Still not liking the idea of total deletion, since even a very trimmed back version could be useful content. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable series and this article serves a useful organizational purpose. DGG (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Mandsford's caption 5 items up from here says it best. The "information" in this article constitutes unciteable original research on a work of fiction, aka "in-universe" plot summary, which would have to be actually published to be citeable, and then it's protected intellectual property. An expanded novelization of the trilogy would have to include some detailed chart (or "scripted monologue" by Doc Brown, if you will) for that to be the case, and I'm not aware of a novelaization in print or out. It also just so happens that there's a BTTF wiki, 13 months old, that is an infinitely more appropriate place for this unpublished mumbo-jumbo. I have been half-expecting this sort of stuff to be gradually weeded out of WP as it matures, and as "fan" wikis propagate. One more observation: these sort of articles contribute to the perception of WP as more of a colossal magazine than "an encyclopedia about everything", but it isn't clear to me whether that's actually a good or bad thing. That's why my vote is weak delete. If 20th-century encyclopedia publishers thought this sort of content would help sell their "on paper" product, they would include it. In short:
Recommend this article be "ported" to the above wiki and a link to it appear in the main BTTF article. That's fair. Schweiwikist (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant delete per nom (I loved the film and drew such timelines myself, but it is plotty ORed synthesis nonetheless). It seems the article already got transwikiied to http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline , so if the BTTF wikipedia articles link there, wikipedia can have the cake (offer all kinds of information) and eat it to (no original research or other policy violations). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly
talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, it looks like the article has lots of references and the films are valid sources. --Pixelface (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References, schmeferences. Please read
WP:OR and doesn't work at all! DELETE Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
While you offer no persuasive reason for deletion, the "References, schmeferences" is somewhat funny (my dad gets all happy whenever someone tosses a "belts, schmelts" out for example as someone did after the heavyweight title fight on Saturday at HBO. Sincerely, --
Tally-ho! 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The first sentence in that section seems fine. That section alone is not a reason to delete the article. If needed, the article can be renamed to List of events in the Back to the Future trilogy and trimmed down. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tries, guys, but I did give a reason. The problem with the article is that to justify the analysis, we need a theory. And to have a theory, we need it from an authoritative reference. We haven't got that, and therefore the whole thing is a bunch of fannish working out based on fannish theories. Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense (I don't mean that as an insult, I just don't follow). Best, --
Tally-ho! 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me try it step-by-step, then. Where did the timelines come from? People worked them out. That's already an "original research" problem, but keep going. What's the basis? Well, there's a theory, and there's the events in the movie. Well, probably the latter are facts, but the theory? Where id it come from? Well, people worked that out too. Is that
WP:OR? Darn tootin'. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Every article is written by someone "originally" taking information from different sources and putting them together. A coherent timeline based on events of a major series presented matter of factually without making some kind of argument is encyclopedic. Best, --
Tally-ho! 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The whole point of having the article in the first place is that the normal narrative rules do not apply. It's difficult to say at any given point in any of the first two movies exactly which versions of whom are in the "current" narrative. Indeed, I think I could make an argument from some of the premises of the first movie that there is always a single timeline which is being continuously rewritten. And that's the central point. It's not a significant synthesis to relate incidents in order when the ordinary arrow of time is agreed upon by all. In this movie, not only is it not agreed upon, the theory of of exactly how it is working isn't entirely clear even to the characters. If you can get Zemeckis and Gale to spell out the theory they used, then maybe it can be applied, though it's entirely possible that there's too much analysis needed to do that. Better still, if someone comes up with a chart or something like that which Z & G used to keep track of the characters, we can report that. The problem is that the article seems to be back-deducing the theory from the movies, and then analyzing the movies based upon that theory. That is a perfect example fo the kind of original research which we don't do. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists events in the film trilogy. An argument that "there is always a single timeline which is being continuously rewritten." actually contradicts dialog (and diagrams) in the films. The fictional character Doctor Emmett Brown said whenever a time traveller alters events in the past, they bring an alternate timeline into existence. This article definitely contains some original research and synthesis, but it's not unsalvageable. --Pixelface (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But really though, what would you be salvaging that isn't already in the articles for each individual movie? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear Wikipedia policy on renominations. — Val42 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two months is a long enough time to find even a single new source to demonstrate
notability of the article subject. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - many of the citations are rather silly, but the primary source (the three movies) should be pretty close to adequate for an article that essentially places details from them in order to show how the time travel premise is worked out in the films, straightforwardly so with little or no interpretation needed. The theory involving the timelines is not OR, but taken directly from Doc Brown's chalkboard explanation, and stated in the article. Nor is it really from the Starlog articles by the late Disney Imagineer cited, since he had a slightly different take on it (the "two Martys theory") that I'm pretty sure was refuted by Zemeckis and/or Gale at some point. That source serves primarily to establish notability, not that a central aspect of such a successful series of movies should need to be vouched for. What this article needs, in my view, is to have some of the more trivial stuff trimmed, and for someone to take the time to source the rest to scenes from the films, supplemented with any other sources that can be found such as DVD featurettes and commentaries, books, magazine articles, etc. Wikipedia has no deadline, and two months since the last nom is probably not enough time to expect someone with the time, interest, and paper sources to undertake the work involved. (I, for example, have a few sources, but mostly buried in boxes. Shall the article be deleted just because I can't face searching through 100 boxes in three rooms at this time?) In the meanwhile, it is better to have the article, despite its faults, than to wipe it and (possibly) start over. --Karen | Talk | contribs 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I think this paragraph exhibits exactly the misunderstanding of "original research" that we are supposed to be avoiding according to
WP:NOR. Yes, the movies are primary sources; but this article, as it stands, can never be more than a fannish analysis of those sources. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:OR here; much of it is simple restatement of things given in an original source. There is no thesis presented, thus there is no research pushed forward. Celarnor (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sheeeesh. Did you read the title of the page to which you linked? Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides an otherwise unavailable detailed and clear reference to enable people to better understand the changes, differences and similarities to time lines. I don't know of any suitable alternate source, and if it were deleted, the appropriate link to an alternate source, if one exists, must be cited at the movies' article. GBC (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_9&oldid=1116879823"~~