Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 10 November 12 >

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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian smile

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

Not notable method of murder without sources. PROD tag removed by IP without summary. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable neologism -- a casual joke in a cartoon show, really. --Lockley (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was a Colombian necktie. Ah well. Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolute giblets. - Btw, a Colombian necktie is where the throat is cut and the victims tongue is pulled out through the resulting hole, Xdenizen (I forgot to sign my !vote) -
    talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per Lockley LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article offers no clue that anyone in Brazil has ever died because someone else tried to transform them into
    The Joker. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    r) 01:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion (

WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Betty baba

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

"Betty baba" is the author of this article, not the subject. In fact, there is nothing at all in the article about Mrs. Baba. This article, entirely written in French, is the author's commentary about

opinion piece about the society being described by Achebe. This is not Mrs. Baba's first attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum. A similar article from the same author, but on an entirely different subject, was deleted prematurely as a prod earlier this week. Delete and salt. (And, no, I do not feel like going into the trouble of translating this mess just to show what I'm talking about.)  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominating:

For discussion prior to this nomination, please see

WP:PNT#Betty baba
.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Cota, Jr.

Norman Cota, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think we need to bring this here.

WP:MEMORIAL firstly, and the issue of sourcing has been brought up at Talk:Norman Cota, Jr.. There are very dubious assertions of notability (undefined and unsourced "was associated with" ... "alledged (sic) that he was at times associated with" ..."it was said") and sourcing from Find A Grave that is not reliable (being user-contributed). If the background is true, it's extremely creditable (I've nothing against that) but these shaky and unproven appeals to association look very iffy, and there is a general problem with the reliability of material from the creator (see the WP:COIN archive). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Three times the big claim is that he is the son of Norman Cota, who is notable. Unfortunately, notability isn't genetic, or inherited. The lack of sources online doesn't bother me (lots of stuff this old suffers from the same issue), but even if you take the article as an accurate opinion (Original Research), it is still obvious how far they are stretching association to link him with notability. As a USAF vet, I have all the respect in the world for him and his accomplishments, but that doesn't mean he passes the criteria for inclusion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If someone can find some citeable sources to support a claim of notibility, the article could stay. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, a cursory look found exactly nothing (9 unrelated or Wiki hits). Not even blog stuff from old military guys or forum hits. Exactly zero ghits on google books, google scholar and google blogs as well. It might could exist in print only since it was such a long time ago, but web sources are completely non-existent. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim of notability, and sources are trivial. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. The father (Norman Cota Sr.) is notable. Norman Cota Jr who is the subject of this article does not appear notable by our standards for military men. In a response to a posting at
    WP:COIN, whose link is provided above by Gordon, the creator of this article, Aedwardmoch, admits that he is a relative of the subject. In a second report at COIN, some editors objected that Moch was creating articles based on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources. This article would appear to be an example of that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yep. The COI itself isn't so much the problem as its leading to original research and synthesis, which hasn't been remedied after what seems a reasonable time.
If anyone's interested in this area of military history, help would be useful at Norman Cota, who's definitely notable - but the article has been expanded with similarly dubious material credited to "Various Internet interviews, comments and opinions from Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota. (Alledged) Biological Grandson of Gen. Norman D. Cota". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Tavares

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

Nonsense vanity page, no notability. Should have been speedied since there isn't an assertion of notability (other than he posts on a message board!) 2005 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately this is not a {{db-bio}} because there is an assertion of notability. It's feeble and unconvincing, but it's there. Reyk YO! 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, insufficient evidence of notability. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep per presence of sources. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can of Worms (interchange)

Can of Worms (interchange) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only thing notable about the interchange is that it is so called "named" by the local community. Places of local intrest is not-notable (see

WP:LOCAL for more info). Also, this interchange is not anymore notable than the millions of other interchanges. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Um no? Your vote was an example that other things exist and an interpretation of places of local interest. People who live near this interchange obviously find it notable and so people around the area would see it in a different way than other people. I drive though interchanges too but are any of them on Wikipedia? No. And why should they? Its just a spot where a couple highways come together. Also keep in mind they they aren't supposed to be "votes" but a discussion to establish consensus. Tavix (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why Dennis used the construction "!vote"; it's an acknowledgment that majority does not rule and that there isn't a very good alternative term for the recommendations we make here. Powers T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't use the other examples as a justification to keep, I used them to demonstrate to you that a consensus already exists that says unusual interchanges are notable if properly sourced. The reason to keep is that It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n. Regardless of any other comments, that statement is true. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of subjects that you consider to be "special". That way chaos and disaster lie. (Think about what would happen if 100,000 editors were all claiming that rule.) It is a compendium of human knowledge. If a subject has been documented in depth in multiple published works written by authors that are independent and that have reputations for fact checking and accuracy, then it satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion and can have an article. Please stop applying subjective criteria and start applying our notability criteria instead. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Do I look like I am trying to start chaos? No! If I wanted to do that, I'd be a vandal. This was a good faith nomination because I fail to see how there is notability. Here is me applying
    WP:N like you want me to do. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." Can someone explain to me how 2 references is "significant"? Tavix (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:N specifically points out that "significant coverage" "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". It has nothing to do with the number of references. What's important is that the sources have been written about the topic, not simply mentioning this interchange in passing. Powers T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article does not demonstrate the notability of its subject, which was not independently determined here, and is in addition a copyright infringement. Any new article on the subject will need to be written in original text (unless sources are released into public domain or licensed compatibly) and

independent, reliable sources. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Kent Youth Choirs

Kent Youth Choirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crookesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 November 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer). Consensus among those engaging in continued discussion here is that the articles about the two victims should be merged to one article about the bank robbery, the title of which can be established through the editorial process.  Sandstein  18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

John Morley (Garda Síochána officer)

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

Article fails the notability criteria for

WP:BIO. Tragically, numerous people are killed everyday, and it is far too commonplace an occurrence. Simply being killed during an armed robbery is not an assertion of notability for a biography. — CactusWriter | needles 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - After the discovery of the
Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer) article about the same event, and the addition of references by T*85 to the John Morley article, it has been suggested these two articles be merged to focus on the event. I support a Merge. — CactusWriter | needles 09:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Apparently 3523 deaths are listed for that 30 year period -- 1667 of them were people in some "official" capacity and another 1857 civilians. There are also listed 22,500 armed robberies and 37,000 shootings for The Troubles#Casualties: brief summary. That certainly doesn't support the assertion that this one was so incredibly uncommon. Any of the notable incidents are (and can be ) in the The Troubles article. — CactusWriter | needles 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing for the notability of the one event, however this is a biography which fails
Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer), about the exact same subject. This article apparently went through an Afd for the same reason and survived by being renamed. I would suggest as a solution that these two articles be merged and renamed to so that notability rests on the event rather than the individual bios. Does this sound reasonable? — CactusWriter | needles 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds reasonable --
talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I looked at
Deaths of Garda Officers (1980) with the appropriate redirects might work best for readers. — CactusWriter | needles 08:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I have rewritten the introduction to focus on the event, and have incorporated the two officers' personal info into the body of the text. By the way, thanks for finding and adding the news references. That made a huge difference. — CactusWriter | needles 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolene

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

Procedural nom. Previously speedied under LOLENE and re-created in a substantially identical form. Sending to AfD in order to be able to use G4 in future (or, of course, to keep if notability can be asserted). Black Kite 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vacuous vanity blather, no real notability asserted, none apparent, no reliable sources.  Sandstein  22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Count Blofeld 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7. so tagged. Clearly non-notable and underneath all the fluff no assertion of importance or significance. ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an actual sort-of-notable "Miss Foo Foo", but she is a jeweller that donates part of her proceedings to african charities [1][2] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not yet notable. Speedy tag removed as part of the reason for the AFD is to allow speedy deletion of recreations (you cannot speedy a recreation under the repost criteria unless it's had a proper AFD). Exxolon (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it were referenced from reliable sources (which it's not) it would still fail
    WP:SNOW, anybody? —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per

WP:CSD#G4 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X series. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Shadow Yamato X

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

Article was originally tagged as nonsensical but declined by me. Original tagger has now come to my talk page with a reasonable request and information that this article is in fact a hoax - see here. As I am not an expert in this area I have placed the article at AfD. --VS talk 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As stated in the linked discussion, its an obvious hoax page. The supposed game, anime and manga all have a release date of "2010", despite claiming there are twenty movies an internet search provides nothing, and all of the external links lead to pages that do not exist. In addition, the actual text of the article is a random jumble of nonsene, grabbing names from various other things, such as Mega Man or Godzilla. Also note that all of the actual user edits have been done by the creator of the page, who randomly changes the text constantly to completely different nonsense.Rorshacma (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure hoax, unencyclopedic, nonsense. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per Author Request, below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Patterns and Forecast Methods Used Today For Successful Forex Trading! Part 1

Forex Patterns and Forecast Methods Used Today For Successful Forex Trading! Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article"/blog breaks a great many items on

-t BMW c- 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was redirect to ChalkZone after Delete. No need to relist. Black Kite 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craniac

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

Non notable set of creatures. Fails

WP:RS. No sources are given at all. Same with citations. This is completely written to the universe of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to ChalkZone. Black Kite 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Tabootie

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

Completely fails

WP:RS. There are no sources or citations. This article is completely non notable outside of the ChalkZone universe. No claims of notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 14:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horace T. Wilter

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

Fails

WP:RS. Completely non notable. No sources at all. No citations given. No evidence of notability. Not important outside of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete & redirect. Black Kite 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Bullnerd

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

Completely fails

WP:RS. It is completely non notable outside of the world of ChalkZone. There are no sources or citations to confirm any notability at all. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Sanchez

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

Fails

WP:RS. Nothing is mentioned about this character outside of the world of ChalkZone. There are no sources at all nor relevant citations either. That being said, it cannot qualify for an article. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapa Research

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

Unsourced spamvertisement that someone removed the prod tag off of without a rationale. Likely a speedy candidate via db-spam / G11. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watson-Marlow Pumps

Watson-Marlow Pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable company, precious little news coverage, article started by company employee, no reliable sources on the page, and no significant sources available to support claims made there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm surprised by this. Per
WP:CORP, the press release (currently ref #4) doesn't count. #3 is a local (Falmouth) newspaper article about the prince visiting Falmouth; relatively little about the company there. The other two are trade publications, and just above the article text we read that the articles were edited by the editorial team -- which suggests that the origin of these "stories" is press releases by the company itself. That's certainly how they read. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I would argue that the prince's visit in itself indicates notability. I included the press release (currently ref #4) because it wasn't from the company. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep (see below). The references for notability relate to an expansion programme which appears to have been heavily promoted: we have a press release (not independent, so does not count under
    WP:CORP. WP:CORP also tells us to consider the depth of coverage - none of the articles says anything about the company per se, just that it was expanding and visited by a royal. We have no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Notability established
    the usual way. I see no reason to discount the usual standards here. Just because it's about a commercial organisation doesn't mean it's spam - assuming such blindly is a disservice to our readers. WilyD 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Here is evidence that the company is eminent in its field - it's the world's largest manufacturer of
    Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment But size isn't everything. Again, referring to
the criteria, A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.... The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Where is this significant coverage? Also Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. - are there any such effects? From the info provided, I say no. If the company has developed products that have changed the industry (and we have secondary sources to attest to it) then notability is established. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Please don't move the goalposts. You complained that there is "no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special". I have provided such evidence. In response to "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", are these 650 books "multiple" enough for you?
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I think there's a difference between size and eminence. Having said that, your book hits certainly suggest to me that these pumps are widely used in their various applications. They are not about Watson-Marlow itself, though, but I found that they won an award in 2005 and they are nominated for an innovation award this year. Overall, I would say that the evidence suggests that the company is notable, and and changing my vote. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per

WP:SNOW (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Trek (1979 pinball)

Star Trek (1979 pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been a stub for over a year now, I don't see how it could ever be more than a stub. More importantly I see no reason why this topic is notable enough for an article. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the production number for the machine is correct that alone would guarantee its notability, not that many pinball machines topped 15k units, being based on the Star Trek property and being made by one of the biggest names in pinball doesn't hurt either. Sure the article needs work (a picture would help out a lot) but being unfinished is no reason to delete it. The
    Tower of Pisa took 177 years to finish and had three difference stages of construction, what a loss that would have been if someone said "this is taking to long, tear it down." Lando242 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Land Before Time songs

AfDs for this article:
List of The Land Before Time songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list of songs from the various Land Before Time movies and television series. Primarily just a mixed list of titles with OR descriptions of the purposes and meanings behind the songs and personal reviews/opinions about the pieces. This is not a legitimate soundtrack list, but a repeat of the various lists of songs already existant in most of the individual articles. Completely unimproved since July AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No need to relist this, Black Kite 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe and Mildred Tabootie

Joe and Mildred Tabootie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fails

WP:RS. No sources at all, no citations either. Not stub worthy. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep There's certainly no consensus to delete and any merge proposal is best discussed on the article talk page. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Excessive list of characters from a single film. Unnecessary to have a standalone list, which simply repeats the film plot with extraneous details and adds

WP:WAF, and is not in line with the Film MOS, which does not even recommend a character section for films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: My understanding is "Merge" is considered one of the options on AFD, therefore this is the appropriate place to discuss it as a legitimate alternative to deletion; now that an AFD is underway it's too late to discuss it at the article level. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's never "too late" to discuss "at the article level". - jc37 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per jc37. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Who Framed Roger Rabbit main article and drastically cut the text down to a level appropriate for an encyclopedia entry in the process. As it is, there is too much plot summary embedded in the character list article. Making appropriate cuts will also prevent it from being split out again. Keeping this as a stand-alone article could be seen as setting a precedent for every film article to have a separate "list of characters" article which is unnecessary for encyclopedia coverage. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one the basis of the argument which happens to be exemplified in the above comment, an argument that represents what i fear the most about thee nominations: the explicit attempt to remove content. When I commented above that i didn't care whether it was a separate article or not, it was on the basis that it didn't matter where the content was to be kept. But apparently at least some of those wanting to merge do indeed see it as a way of removing the content, not keeping it, and are indeed using merge with the actual meaning of delete. This is content which is perfectly appropriate for a such a landmark film, content sourceable to the primary source for the material and therefore encyclopedic. This is just what should be included in substantial detail in the Wikipedia coverage of important fiction. DGG (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's heavy on in-universe perspective, but if we could improve sourcing and trim the bloat it could be half-decent. Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Sttrong Keep This seems like the sensible way to deal with characters. It's a lot better than having an article on each one. And there's too much information to incorporate in the main article. I hope the main article links to this list though! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is there too much information (if all the plot regurgitation is removed)? Most of it isn't even sourced, but thinks like character creation belongs in the main article's production section anyway. Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article, making it a bad split. Even its creator has now said it should be merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You hit on my problem with trying to merge when you said, "Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article". This is an article on the characters not the film. If people have an interest in that subject, and it appears they do, I've concluded it makes the encyclopedia better and more complete to include this information. It's peer reviewed (like all articles here), so hopefully bad information will be culled, even though references are a problem. I think many of us have a traditional view of what information is appropriate to an encyclopedia. But who is to say that pop-culture characters are less encyclopedic than arcane political figures, math topics, or scientific obscurities? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perry the Platypus

Perry the Platypus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All of the other characters were redirected. I don't see much of a point in redirecting this, and if I did it would probably get remade anyway. No sources could possibly exist for this character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following similar articles for deletion for the exact same reasons stated above:

Ferb Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge and Salt: There was a discussion at

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz. Aspects (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new article I recommend creating a "Phineas and Ferb characters" article. This information is obviously notable and worthwhile to people who are creating and writing these articles (citing and stopping original research is a separate issue). There's way too much to include in the article about the show, so all the merge recommendations are kind of worthless. Also, the format of encyclopedic character summaries is different from that of an article about a show. It seems to me this is a problem faced again and again and the way to go is to standardize the creation of "characters" articles. I don't like the words "list of" but I think "Star Wars characters" is encyclopedic enough. Once that article is created all these articles can be redirected and the information can be sensibly centralized. The only exception would be a character notable apart from the show or so large and significant it would need its own article. That's my two cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I investigated further and I concluded these articles are too substantial even to merge into a single article, although I think "characters" articles make sense. These characters are notable as being part of popular television shows, and the fight to eliminate them and to integrate the massive articles and interest they have into parent articles seems futile. I don't know how to deal with the sourcing and references problem, but I don't see the harm in having articles on these characters. In fact, I think it makes the encyclopedia more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not inherent. Just because a show is notable, does not mean the individual charters are notable. See
    WP:NOTINHERITED. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I know the nom is in good faith, but in my old age, I am beginning to question why we are so quick to delete stuff that isn't obviously bad (spam/false bio/vandal). We aren't paper, and I am not so sure that deleting articles that are somewhat informative but borderline on policy is the way to go. I am starting to see that in the past I worried too much about the "letter of the policy" instead of the intent, and now my focus starts at "Will this make Wikipedia better or worse?", which I think should trump every policy and guideline. Oh wait
    completely out of line. In this case, Wikipedia isn't better without it, so maybe we are reading the policy too strictly. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep either as separate articles or equally extensive sections, and create new articles or article sections of similar length for the other main characters. The argument above has it backwards--the even more important articles on the even more important characters should certainly have been kept, and the sooner we correct earlier errors the better; fortunately, we're not bound by precedent--that argument implies that if we delete one article in a group we should delete all the others, the arch-deletors never seem to understand the same argument also works in the opposite direction. As used, its another way of biasing all afds towards deletion. It doesnt doesn't matter whether in main articles of in section: The important point is to keep the content. The clear intent of merging in this case as in many others is to remove content, as can be seen from the inadequate sections in the merged article.

    The sort of detailed coverage in this section is exactly what is appropriate to a moderately important character such as this is moderately important fiction: an episode by episode analysis. As for plot, this is the level at which plot of such fictions ought to be covered--and it is usually clearer to do it right here, at the character level, as well as the episode level, they complement each other. As for duplication, we are NOT PAPER, and can duplicate as convenient for the reader; as for referencing if the sourcing is down to the episode level, implicit in the text as it is here, it meets the requirements., As for OR, the sort of description here is pretty obvious and is nto forbidden synthesis; as external critical work accumulates, it can be extended--I disagree with Dennis that we should ignore the need to avoid OR in general. (abridged,continued at [4]) DGG (talk)
abridged to the immediately relevant--give it another try. The fewer nominated, the less there will be need be to explain :) DGG (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I see your point, but seriously, do you think there will ever be any out-of-universe sources for these characters? I highly doubt it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's persuasive soliloquy. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, nothing in the Keep arguments have addressed the notability of the characters that is needed to have a Wikipedia article. These articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since I started the merge discussion in July on the Phineas and Ferb article and tagged all of the character articles, only Candace Flynn added a reliable secondary source to prove Ashley Tisdale voices the character. This either shows that no one is willing to find the sources to provide notability or there are no sources to provide notability. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. Copyright violation. Presently, no prejudice to recreation under a free licence. WilyD 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeneNetWeaver

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

Mostly instructions for open source program. No sources or establishment of notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle (company)

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

Fails

WP:CORP, no notability Oscarthecat (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keating Economics

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

WP is not news. The article says this was a "documentary" but it sounds more like a 13 minute campaign ad. It will probably have no lasting importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insignificant apart from the presidential campaign, therefore does not need its own article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is article is a bad attempt at POV pushing full of misleading statements and misrepresentations. The article is about a youtube video and the statements I looked into regarding what's in the references are misrepresentations. Disturbing, and it's creators should probably be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have removed the offending content. Now the problem is the title, which doesn't represent the article content (as well as being confusing and misleading). This conent probably belongs in the Presidential Campaign 2008. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attack page/campaign propaganda of minimal effect on the campaign. The Keating thing was raised, and dropped. I oppose a merge b/c that would leave a redirect, although useful content could certainly be incorporated. RayAYang (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a peripheral part of the campaign, fails WP:N, we can delete especially now that it's over. Biruitorul Talk 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Turned out to be of minimal importance in campaign, no importance afterward. The Keating Five article already includes a brief mention of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak cottage

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

Unclear notability, lack of sources. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, appears to be a
WP:COPYVIO of http://newjerseyhistorichomesforsale.com/OakCottageHistory.html. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thiny veiled attempt at house-sale promotion perhaps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite The article is sourced but seems to be copied directly from the source. The cottage itself, dating back over 150 years seems to be notable as an historic landmark. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was clumsily posted in relation to a real estate ad. But the property is historic. I removed the copyviolation (ie. 95% of the text). There is a lot more information on the property in the reference provided (a real estate ad detailing the property and its history) if anyone wants to expand the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building is on the National Register of Historic Places, there is a WikiProject dealing with this subject (
    WP:NRHP) whose aim is to improve coverage of NRHP buildings. Thus it would seem to be notable enough to retain. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Ground

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

Non-notable under WP:PORNBIO. Being #18 out of 2007 Special Edition Model of the Year is not a notable achievement/award (follow first reference). Article was AFD'd twice before but I could not find the second discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No need to re-list this. Black Kite 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (ChalkZone)

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

This was nominated in February, but the result was never really taken care of. First off, this fails

original research. It is not notable outside of the ChalkZone universe at all. It is not the subject of multiple third party sources. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to Face the Music (Electric Light Orchestra album). consensus determined there was not enough info for a separate article. Mgm|(talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down Home Town

Down Home Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Why should individual songs have articles? Albums and singles, but not tracks. --Cocomonkilla (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recession-proof industries

Recession-proof industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an essay on the subject, not a cited article that asserts the notability of the obviously interesting but non notable topic. Lack of citations lead to a total lack of authority, and lack of authority devalues Wikipedia. That recession is a buzzword at present is undeniable, but this article is not a useful reference point Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Puri

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

Courtesy completion of nomination for User:Bihco Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Makes some dubious assertions of notability, but cannot back the claims with sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable, quick google search gives me [2] and [3]. That is just a very quick glance at the results, this person seems completely notable to me, though the article deserves expansion. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the 2nd ref and it is full of gramical errors and is a blog, are blogs now suitable for use as refs in wikki?? Bihco (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Caparulo

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Only trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable, has been in a major festival, has multiple non-facebook, non-Wikipedia, non-blog, non-self-published hits on google, and has been on various shows and tours. Seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) for entertainers unless I am misreading it. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man has been in a movie, on multiple television shows -- even hosts a show on CMT. I think whoever put this up for deletion just doesn't know of him. -- 98.219.149.112 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the following sites:
- IMDB Profile - Shows appearances on "The Tonight Show", "Comedy Central Presents", "Last Comic Standing", "Mobile Home Disasters", and more.
- Comedy Central - Premium Blend Sample Video
- CMT "Mobile Home Disasters" - He is the host of this show for CMT
I think its safe to say he fits the notability profile and should be included. - TRTitus (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Tobin Titus)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Funeral. MBisanz talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begrafenisrituelen

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

Article was originally tagged for speedy deletion as {{

WP:PNT. After it was translated, I've discovered that this is a first-person essay that says nothing that Funeral does not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge relevant material as above, then Delete Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but merge any new content (which looks doubtful) to funeral or whatever is most appropriate. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I apologise, its my fault it got done as a notenglish in the first place. I misunderstood using what little dutch I have available (babel nl-2) and suggested it be notenglish rather than a QD. Remove, per others.
    talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Redirect the old stub. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Wang

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

Although the first AFD result was "keep", that was on the grounds of notability. However if you look at the references given I think you will see that there is no real evidence that he is a historical figure, in fact I believe it is just a recent story floating around the internet. Note that the current references appear to be duplicates, and everything else I found on the web is also identical. Also one current reference is labelled "the lighter side" and the other is a self-published book Juzhong (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A brief examination of the google hits seems to demonstrate notability, but looking deeper, there is nothing I have found that even indicates this is a real person, and not a hoax/joke. Need additional information to show this is a notable person deserving of a Wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last AFD closed two days ago! A spagetti-cooking approach to AfD should not be encouraged, hoax allegation is patently silly. WilyD 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Looking again at the sources, I fear the nominator may be right, and we may possibly have made an overhasty stupid mistake which is best soon corrected, but I am not sure how to tell. Essentially, we are asked to make a judgement call on whether the story in Adam Genkaku Fisher's book is a pure invention of his, or whether there was such a monk who told such a story (I assume the website reprinted it, but it could have been the other way round). We need help from specialists here. There is no name given in Chinese characters, and I think that possibility has to be searched correctly, which I cannot do. (The name is intrinsically possible, as there are a number of people with that name in Facebook). But how about internal evidence, though-- was there a Han-hsieh monestary? Is the dating to the 13th year of the Earth Dragon period (898) plausible? -- not that finding t hem demonstrates the truth of this, but not finding them would demonstrate the fictionality. Cucumbers at least are native to China, butthat's not quite enough. DGG (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Googling "han hsin" monastery as well as "han shin" monastery (the story is inconsistent) just comes back to the same thing. Likewise "Earth Dragon period". Juzhong (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no substance to the claim that Tung-Wang didn't exist. Difficulty here is to prove that the people named Tung-Wang are really this person. Definitely one book says he's real. Apparently there really was a Tung Wang in Chinese history who was somewhat of a mystic, but tying the two together is difficult (additional). I had a little think on this and have come to the conclusion that there's not enough notability for the page in any case. The existence of Tung-Wang is relatively immaterial compared to the fact that notability has not really been established and therefore this page should be deleted --Kickstart70TC 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, that's a self-published book, you are not supposed to count it as a reliable source. Juzhong (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tung Wang in your second book is Yang Xiuqing (Yang seu Tsing), who was awarded the title "Dong Wang/东王" meaning "East King" (search within the book for "Tung Wang". Juzhong (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opening a new AfD was recommended by the admin who closed the original AfD in this comment, because the reason for deletion had changed. Matt's talk 17:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Stifle&page=&year=&month=-1

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold (comic strip)

Arnold (comic strip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This strip was created by a red link hack cartoonist and was distributed by two red link syndicates. Only 40 newspapers ever carried it. The source cited is no doubt reliable, but there's no indication of how much detail it allots for this particular strip. I could find no other sources that would assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I'm leaning slightly towards keeping it as appearing in forty newspapers for several years is a rather significant achievement for a comic strip. As for reviews or what have you of it, I'm sympathetic towards it on this point due to its age (pre-internet days) which could make it hard for use to find the sources for this so I won't be hasty in judging it to be delete. Mathmo Talk 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to get mentioned in MAD ("The Trend Towards Rottenness in the Comic Strips", MAD #253, March 1985).SPNic (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact the syndicates have redlinks only means that no one has bothered to write articles about them -- both syndicates are actually fairly well known within U.S. publishing. The fact the comic strip was syndicated across the country would confirm notability. Clearly the article requires enhancing, but not erasure.
    talk) 01:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. According to this interview "it was in fifty six papers at one time. LA Times was one of the big ones." --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A comic strip that ran in papers for several years. - jc37 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the author and syndicates are redlinks is a weird ad-hominem argument for deletion doesn't actually mean anything. (So what if things associated with the article are redlinks?) The breadth and length of its syndication is no mean feat, however. There are undoubtedly sources for this article, just perhaps not many on the internet currently. Ford MF (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalford Football Club

Shalford Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Amateur village football team which does not meet GNG or the

WP:FOOTY project rule of thumb of having competed in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in a national cup competition. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This club obviously falls below the commonly accepted level. I also notice that much of this article is a copyvio and there's very little in the way of available third-party sources to make this club in any way notable.
    (rawr!) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Bettia said it all really. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bettia. GiantSnowman 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shame know, My Uncle played for this team during the 60s. :) Govvy (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! It's a club with over a hundred years of history and they may not have played in the top 10 tiers but they're in the 11th right now! Sometimes the people on Wikipedia can be such tosspots. (I apologise for my bad language but I'm clearly not that articulate...) Oh, and if you're going to have an article about the league Shalford are in then why not have one about each of the clubs in that league? Seems a bit silly to me. Could be that the league doesn't meet your RoT in which case I understand completely now and you should probably delete that too... Ms331 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I know it can be annoying but Wiki has a criteria of what a notable club should be and by those rules this team shouldn't have an article. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discover (Why The Love Hurts)

Discover (Why The Love Hurts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable currently. Can't see any reasonable objection to this. Griever89 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Porter

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

Co-ed of the Month isn't a notable award per WP:PORNBIO. No work outside a few Playboy releases. Not all Playboy models are notable. This article was deleted once with a prod. Dismas|(talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes she is notable according to WP:PORNBIO unlike what the nominator claims. As Playboy is a major magazine (one of the ones mentioned in WP:PORNBIO if you read it). Mathmo Talk 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO does not say appeared a few times in a major publication, it says must have multiple appearences in notable mainstream media or be nominated for an award such as those listed in Playboy (or other major adult magazines). Therefore, fails WP:PORNBIO. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple mainstream appearances on Howard Stern verified by howardstern.com. [5][6][7] which satisfies criteria 3 of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In past AfDs there has been the general feeling that so many porn stars appear on Howard Stern that it isn't enough to establish notability. Although, until criteria 3 is ammended you're right that technically it does pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Google searches are generally not sufficient to establish notability. Specific reliable sources are.  Sandstein  18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Krikorian

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

Non-notable politician, fails

talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I did. The kind of coverage below is normal for any non-fringe candidate at the local level, it's not particularly significant. You'd need something outside of the election this candidate lost to apply
    WP:N--Boffob (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas

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

Very little information on this page, no citations. Page not necessary, considering small scope of franchise: 2 video games and 1 movie. ~

talk/contrib} 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Even with only notable characters, article would be nothing more than a mirror of the
talk/contrib} 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There is already a similar
talk/contrib} 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
But it serves point #6 better as a separate page. I'd prefer expanding the list to include all characters in the movie, rather than merely those in the video game or that have their own articles, since lists "may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list."--
otherlleft (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps inclusion dependent that the character had a notable role in the movie. One editor had added characters that were essentially extras (Invisible Man, who was supposedly seen at the beginning of the movie). Perhaps if a extremely minor character had a greater role or background given in a offshoot of NMBC, then inclusion would be acceptable. However, if this will be the case, that characters from the series will be on the list (I haven't played the games, but if there are new characters in the games), then the page should be retitled to 'List of characters in the Nightmare Before Christmas franchise' or similar.
Just to list random characters who may or may not be important to the plot would be irresponsible. ~
talk/contrib} 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that the lead sentence lends confusion by conflicting with the title of the article itself, and either retitling or repurposing may be in order. However, I would recommend more latitude on how notable each character in the movie needs to be - I haven't watched it in years but if your description of the Invisible Man is accurate he might not make the grade, but in my eyes this list is simply very stubby and can be expanded to include all characters that have names and dialog. Lists permit non-notables to be accumulated in a manner that demonstrates a collective notability.--
otherlleft (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the so-called Invisible Man was just that...not visible. ~
talk/contrib} 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Auzemandius, you recently suggested a page move for the article in question. Would you like to add further to this discussion, perhaps indicating why you would recommend moving the article if you nominated it for deletion?--
otherlleft (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
More information had come into light (some characters were in more works than I had realized) and the list could be expanded to include character that were non-notable in the original work but were expanded upon in the other works. So, if the article were to be moved to a franchise list of characters page, then I would be more apt to keep the article. ~
talk/contrib} 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I suggest you withdraw the nomination under those circumstances. We agree that moving would be problematic at this time, and deletion policy encourages nominators to do so if they find a way to resolve without deletion.--
otherlleft (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, navigational page, we have tons of these all over the wiki.

--

talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, a perfectly reasonable subarticle on a notable subject. Everyking (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly suitably list article that needs cleaning up including formatting the refs. The list in the main article is of the voice actors not the characters themselves. I have no clue of the same actors were used in the derivative products but there's still no reason either list should be deleted.
    -- Banjeboi 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment I call attention to [10], an edit where the nominator removed substantial content from the article, and then immediately nominated for deletion. And, as people have shown, such content could have been sourced. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator did right in removing that stuff. It was unsourced, poorly written original research. As for immediately nominating for deletion, I can remember a few occasions where I have made improvements to an article and then, on reading the whole thing through, realized it was an unsalvageable mess and nominated it at AfD. That's probably what the nominator's done here. If you're suggesting more sinister motives, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with
    WP:AGF. Reyk YO! 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Blink blink. Then five minutes later you nommed for deletion? I noticed you also labeled all that content you removed as cruft - also rather contentious. I guess you'll be reverting yourself to re-add that content know that several folks have mentioned how it seemed to be detrimental to the health of the article? A negative impact of sorts.
    -- Banjeboi 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not seeing the problem, personally. I don't see how my interests are involved here. I have no personal stake in this page nor any dislike for the page. All I saw, after I removed the fluff, was a page that was a duplicate of a list already on Wikipedia. Once I saw that, I realized the page was pointless. Like I said, five minutes makes a world of difference sometimes. My foot seems fine to me. ~
talk/contrib} 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think people are generally used to seeing a deletion tag placed on an article as an editor happens upon it -- not after an editor works on it. I don't think anyone is assuming bad faith, I think it's just an unusual situation, but one that will probably come up again.
shoot! 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Final helpful hint You don't have to "see the problem" to see the result. My tip: Next time you edit then decide to AFD it, I would revert to pre-edit, and SAY in the AFD "I tried, but it just wasn't notable (see history for my reverted changes)". This is honest and no one can possibly question you. It doesn't matter how "right" you are if people are paying more attention to your motives than your arguments. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article now is referenced, so that isn't an issue. Mentioning the scope is irrelevant in my opinion; it is more about the impact. Even single films and works of literature need not be a franchise to merit a character list. My appreciation to those who greatly improved the article.
    shoot! 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (G3). Alexf(talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bottle too Far

A Bottle too Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a "cult novel" that it seems does not to exist. Neither the title, nor the author's name appear on Amazon or abebooks. Though claimed to be Canadian, the book is not held at Library and Archives Canada. Google search for "Brianne Duhamel" + "Bottle too Far" brings only Wikipedia and mirror sites. The creation of a single purpose account. Perhaps a candidate for speedy. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not G1, as G1 states "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes". However, it should be deleted as a hoax, and not speedily deleted. :D Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (
    MuZemike (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and merge. The information included fails

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations into account, but given the age of that AfD and the fact that it was not unanimous, and given the arguments below, consensus, and policy, have changed. A good start to merging this article would be to simply take the information provided, and compress it into a paragraph or two, as has been done at this page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Air India Express destinations

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

Wholly unencyclopedic information best suited to the company's own website--where it in fact can be found. Among other defects (such as the fact that nobody would look for this information in an encyclopedia and that it's fundamentally advertising), this information is subject to frequent change. Bongomatic 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, trying to draw a parallel between a list of a few dozen entries, and a enormous phone directory of several thousand, is a straw man argument, which I will not spend any time refuting. I'll just say that phone books are not for Wikipedia, and that these destination lists are not phone books. Second, I cannot see how this is a violation of NOTDIR at all. The points listed in that policy are (1) "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", I have argued above for why these lists are relevant in the coverage and not loosely associated. When tied to a particular airline, they are strongly associated. (2) "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Each of the entries on the list are notable on their own, indeed each of the airports have separate articles as they should do. In fact, this list has a useful navigational function. (3) "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" These lists are not airline schedules. An airline would find it rather useless to just say where they fly if they don't say when they fly. Airline schedules however, are beyond the domain of Wikipedia. The proper analogy is that we have an article on List of programs broadcast by CBS, while we don't have an article on the CBS programming schedule for tomorrow. (4) "Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." These lists make no attempt at giving the ticket prices to various airport, nor should they. (5) "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Not an issue here, there is only one criteria, whether this airline flies there or not. An inappropriate list would be along the lines of "List of destinations served by Air India Express and Jet Airways". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to delete that one too. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This application of
common sense to suggest a sensible and workable solution is so out of place that it seems almost inappropriate for an AfD discussion. Bongomatic 07:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy denney

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

I just declined a speedy on this.

She may indeed be notable, but the claims need to be expressed better, with verification and I would like the reassurance of the scrutiny of an AfD. Dweller (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete for now, but if acceptable sources can be found after a reasonable period has passed, the community has no objection to the articles being recreated. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le-Tuyen Nguyen

Le-Tuyen Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). The two reference links provided (one in Vietnamese) are the only references that can be found on the web. The subject gave one lecture at an international guitar festival about his new technique, but nothing more is known about him, as he has received no mainstream media coverage. DAJF (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page which outlines the guitar technique created by this person, but which is equally non-notable and has not received any significant media coverage:
Staccato-harmonic duo-tone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      • REPLY from Sydney Guitarist:

1)Charles Darwin University is a mainstream institution and a mainstream media coverage. 2)Vietnamese reference and English reference just shows the international coverage of the subject. Therefore, both articles Le-Tuyen Nguyen and Staccato-Harmonic Duo-tone pass Wikipedia:Notability (music).I recommend DAJF to read the translated version that I have given before. Sydney Guitarist (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Sydney Guitarist (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Sydney Guitarist (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have tried to work with the author to help explain the criteria for inclusion, and he has truly made every effort to learn this and properly source the article. The fact still remains that neither the artist nor the technique can be verified with any reliable sources. One of the sources is reliable, but mentions the technique in passing only. The other source is interesting (once translated) but soundly fails wp:rs. In the end, it is clear that these might be somewhat "interesting" but they don't come close to passing notability requirements here and there is little hope that they can in the future. This is why I wince when new editors start out by creating articles, as it is pretty hard to do within policy on your first day. I don't want him to get a bad taste for Wikipedia, and hope he sticks around long enough to understand and help us on similar articles. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know nothing about Guitars, but I do know that the Charles Darwin University international guitar festival is extremely important and I would be very surprised indeed if more reliable sources can not be found. Someone who understands what they would be reading, please have a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
  • This article at AFD isn't about Charles Darwin University or the International Guitar Festival. It is about
    reliable sources? When you say Someone who understands what they would be reading, please have a look. it sounds a bit like you are assuming those of use requesting delete don't understand what we are reading. I'm sure that isn't the impression you were trying to create. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No, it was not and I was not talking about Charles Darwin University or the International Guitar Festival either. I was suggesting that sources will probably exist because of the fact that the Guitar Festival at CDU is extremely important. I would not know where to look, but someone who knows about Guitars might. Blind Google searches are not always a good idea. It really helps if you do know something about the field and all I was saying was that I do not.


  • Firm Keep and Expand

The articles have been wrongly proposed for deletion based on the Wikipedia’s policy on Notability(Music): 

“It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]”

Technically speaking, Dennis Brown was wrong to propose the articles for deletion. One day after the article created, although they were referenced with the Darwin International Guitar Festival’s site, he claimed: “No actual claim of notability nor independent sources to show such” It was certain that he had his doubts that the Guitar Festival’s official webpage is not reliable. He could not even decide the reliability of an English webpage. All classical guitarists would know how extremely important this international event is. A lecture-recital at an extremely important international event is non-trivial.

Obviously he did not do his homework properly, because on the next day, after my discussion, he then accepted that “it sounds like Darwin International Guitar Festival is notable”. So there was ONE reliable source, not NONE. Technically, he was wrong then. Having the same attitude, DAJF seconded the AFD without seeing the contradiction of ONE and NONE.

However, despite of not being able to decide whether an English webpage is reliable or not, Mr. Brown then went on and gave a high-pitched and authoritative voice to judge the Vietnamese sources! He claimed that the Vietnamese sources as: “even before I translated it, I could tell it fails WP:RS” (see discussion). That is good news, now Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, African, French and the rest of the world’s editors don’t need to learn English to judge English sources.

The Vietnamese sources (one based in Germany, one in Vietnam) were written by a regular arts critic with a review of the lecture with musical excerpt and analysis. I don’t think that Mr. Brown would be able to understand the analysis anyway, even if it is written in English.

A lecture-recital at an international event is non-trivial, a review written by an arts critic is non-trivial. Sources are reliable and independent from the subject itself and in 2 different languages, including English. Please be very careful and respect yourself when you propose an article for deletion. Sydney Guitarist (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dennis Brown didn't bring this article to AFD. DAJF did. Dennis Brown is the guy who spent a great deal of time trying to find sources for the article and helping a new author. In the end, it was for naught as the subject matter can't be verified. And yes, the Vietnamese source appears to fail
    WP:RS. Not because of the language, but because it doesn't appear to be a vetted source. Personal attacks on me don't strengthen your case. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply Please respect yourself and don't make false accusation about personal attacks! Everything I wrote could be verifiable through the history, discussion and this page itself.

Sydney Guitarist (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • NPA warning left on Sydney Guitarist's TP. –Moondyne 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both not a notable musician using available online sources the lack of information about the subject is compelling, a current "Concert Guitarist" of any note would have at least one online advert of a performance somewhere. As a composer you'd expect to find a credit for one his works in an online source. If the subjects new performance method was notable then it would also be giving hits for the subject. All this subject has is 3 hits for the Guitar festival, theres not even a media article about the event that mention even in passing the subject or the performance method. Gnangarra 07:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Fails
    WP:MUSIC and as per Gnangarra's rationale. I see nothing especially notable here. –Moondyne 13:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, not a deletion issue. This is not Articles for Merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

There was only one season aired in Philippines' Next Top Model. But the second cycle never confirmed. See merger proposal from Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 in Philippines' Next Top Model talk page. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Kabuye

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

As per

WP:NOTNEWS E Wing (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The same article appears in Dutch and has been allowed. I do not understand why it can't be allowed in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKa (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'll say no more than to just point you here [14]. ShoesssS Talk 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:POLITICIAN but needs expansion as I argued below.--Boffob (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: there is substantial info about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby that make them deserve their own articles. There isn't much to be said about Rose Kabuye that couldn't be included elsewhere. If the article could be expanded beyond a stub, I'd reconsider my vote, but there doesn't seem to be much reliable coverage about this person beyond brief mentions of her involvement in the particular events relating to the Rwandan genocide.--Boffob (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see nothing wrong with stubs :-), it allows others to expanded upon the piece readily and easily. But I take your point to heart, and will see if I can expand upon. ShoesssS Talk 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her arrest has been widely covered by the international press.
    Assassination of Habyarimana and Ntaryamira in 1994, 2. The arrest of Rose Kabuye in 2008. While the latter is related to the former, given the new diplomatic row between Rwanda and and Germany, the latter is by certainty a major event of its own. The article already has acceptable amount of content and is expandable. I would also point out that the article was nominated for deletion four minutes after it was created! It is impossible to figure out non-notability in such a short timespan, particularly given the huge number of ghits for a Rwandan person. Julius Sahara (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Flies through
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger (good catch). Passes
    WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger (good catch) ! Christophe Neff (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She would be marginally notable in my opinion based purely on being a female veteran of 4 years of war, rising to the rank of lt colonel, and being one of the top five most influential woman veterans in the country, one part of the government gender initiative. Add in any of her other positions, even President of the Kigali AIDS Commission to take perhaps the least of them, and it's no longer marginal. - BanyanTree 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World

State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No suggestion or sources in article to show notability -- the book isn't even published yet. There probably shouldn't be separate articles for each book anyway (eg

talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to Alves, Moray. MBisanz talk 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alves primary school

Alves primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
  • Merge to Alves, Moray, where it can be discussed in context until sufficient reliable sources exist to justify an article. Alves, Moray, could certainly use the content/expansion anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto of Intuitive Art

Manifesto of Intuitive Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD),

Pure

WP:COI author objection. Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy deleted; self-admitted vandalism by User:BasilSorbie. Much time and energy wasted by all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary tiddlywinks

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

Neologism? No relevants ghits for the term; not mentioned in the online source given in the article; article itself is a cut-and-paste of Parliamentary ping-pong, which is a real thing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Retardation" in Pop Culture

"Retardation" in Pop Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism, non-notable, original research Oscarthecat (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System

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

Non-notable

talk) 11:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nuclear Politics in America

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

Non-notable

talk
) 11:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC) *Comment I'm pretty sure that well-enough-regarded textbooks are notable by dint of being well-enough-regarded. It would be well to check this. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear or Not?

Nuclear or Not? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

talk) 11:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Unquestionably not the only book covering the nuclear power debate in the UK. Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change

Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

talk) 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Brown (journalist)

Mick Brown (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

talk) 11:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I still do not think it meets

WP:BIO criteria. None of the four references added is third party source. This is a mini biography posted in site where he contributes, This and this are mini biographies by his publishing company. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dance of 17 Lives

The Dance of 17 Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 11:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism

The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 11:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gene Revolution: GM Crops and Unequal Development

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of Time: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons Now

The Gift of Time: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Institute for Nuclear Security

The World Institute for Nuclear Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Fails

talk) 10:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pesticide Question

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Truth About Chernobyl

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Mackenzie

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

Fails

talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Nuclear Terrorism

On Nuclear Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What the Buddha Taught

What the Buddha Taught (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable

talk) 10:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction to Sustainable Development

An Introduction to Sustainable Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility

Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to Ian Lowe. MBisanz talk 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Fix

A Big Fix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough

Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep in the absence of any further justification from the (very busy) nominator. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep and capitalize "Is". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Past Lives

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

Non-notable

talk) 10:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure.

DARTH PANDAduel 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

On the Track of Unknown Animals

On the Track of Unknown Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

talk) 10:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Teneous Keep.
    WP:BK criteria 5 and possibly 3. This the book on cryptozoology by the guy who invented it - Bernard Heuvelmans. Wikipedia says "he best and most influential cryptozoological works." (okay bad source) But others say "the seminal book on cryptozoology" SciFi Channel, " the most important book in the field" - a geocities website. According to another website it is one of two works by Heuvelmans available in English [31], which may explain absence of English coverage. I agree my argument is not entirely convincing, but I think it still enough to justify keeping. This is appears a pretty important text in cryptozoology circles. --ZayZayEM (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arecibo reply

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

talk) 10:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Added a few links including the SETI disclaimer; you may consider the obscurity argument refuted, regardless of your own opinions; if you reread the Fringe criteria, your own agreement is not a permissible factor, and your chosen selective ignorance of the field does not qualify you regarding notability, please reread them. Atmoz, I assume the "laws of physics" you refer to are the time constraints placed by c on message travel time, but your straw man assumptions are a fallacy, ignoring e.g. the obvious possibility that the reply could have been created from craft monitoring the planet locally; I hope you don't regard the application of logic to the existence of possible alternatives original research, but you really should read reasonably well-constructed articles in their entirety before arrogating to yourself the competence to vote on their deletion, you only betray your unscientific ignorance and bias otherwise. I assume we can next expect dismissal of all articles on religion, however popular, as "scientifically unfounded" next? And my other points above also remain. This determination should be made on merit rather than vote count, as the grounds of objection are falling out from underfoot, and good pro ones are in place. Chris Rodgers (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris Rodgers. __
    talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per

WP:SNOWBALL. Rewriting requests should be brought to the article's talk page. BorgQueen (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hindu Taliban

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

Hindu Taliban violates WP policies of Wikipedia:No original research & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bharatveer (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. It sounds sound. Although, the Hindu taliban thing can go better with a Hindu militancy. (i already have some links that won't fit into this but they would the other) Lihaas (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to debunk the entry, but just trying to get things sorted, before I can give my opinion. The following are my concerns:
Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the term is provided in the very first sentence "Hindu Taliban is a term sometimes used by tolerant or "secular" Hindus to describe the supporters of the Hindutva movement" with reference India: A Global Studies Handbook by Fritz Blackwell which explicitly states that the term is in use. Yes, the term has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article describes the usage of the term, it is used by notable people (Praful Bidwai, Tunku Varadarajan, Kuldip Nayar, Govind Nihalani, Ashok Row Kavi, Amberish K Diwanji) in notable publications (Dawn, NYT, Frontline, Rediff). All of them use it to describe Hindutva groups like Shiv Sena, RSS, VHP and their attitude towards religion, minority communities, freedom for the artist (M.F. Husain), public kiss, religious violence, homosexuality etc. IMO the coverage the term received in references like these [32][33][34][35][36] is substantial coverage. The article is also not one-sided, it has a Criticism section with three reliable source India Today, NYT and Outlook. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—
few or no other edits
outside this topic.
Comment This IP is probably the same person as Special:Contributions/59.164.105.254, Special:Contributions/59.164.100.127 and Special:Contributions/59.164.186.29. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the contribs and editing patterns, the above statement by Otolemur seems correct -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This AfD is an utter mess. I've had to discount numerous opinions either way because they contain personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith,

weak arguments, citations of random "WP:" alphabet soup links with no clear rationale why this article in particular meets or fails that particular rule, etc. What remains is, at any rate, no consensus about whether this article should be kept or deleted.  Sandstein  18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sikh extremism

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

Doesn't satisfy

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as well. It’s very creation is based on hatred against Sikh religion by certain respected Wiki editors who have a history of vandalizing Sikhism related articles See sections: ‘’Islam and Sikhism Vs 90.196.3.37 alias 90.196.3.246’’ , ‘’ip 90.196.3.246 (Talk)’’, ‘’ Sikh Fanaticism’’ Singh6 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess deletion is not the way to run away from Wikipedia's inherent shortcomings! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have many articles on the extreme wings of movements and religions; they are difficult to write in a neutral way, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The previous two voters don't say what they think this article is a POV fork of: there is certainly more to this article than
    Punjab insurgency. It is ridiculous to claim that Sikh extremism is not notable, as the families of the Air India bombing victims will testify. "Not a battleground" does not mean that we avoid writing articles on controversial subjects. And finally this article has many problems with neutrality, style and other things; but being a bad article is not reason to delete it - it's a reason to improve it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Reply, Respected Sir, Air India Bombing incident was part of Khalistan movement as well. Further it is still not clear that who actually executed this attack, Indian agents (to counter sympthy gained by Khalistan movement in the west[4][5], or by Khalistani militants who wanted to attack Indian targets to harm it financially[6]. Vicitamizing the name of a whole community in this kind of uncertainty is not fare. We can improve the existing articles. Please read the provided references and please reconsider your vote.--Singh6 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respected sir, the rest of the world does not know much about the Khalistan movement. But it does know about Sikh extremism. Take for instance this article [37] which refers to Sikh terrorism but not Khalistan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need an overview article, looking at the links between these three. (P.S. Please do no embolden the word delete when you are simply using it in a sentence and have already expressed your view elsewhere). DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respected Sir, How many overview articles would you need for existing political article Khalistan movement, its pre and post history ? --Singh6 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; - Issues:
    Punjab Insurgency with the addition of other points of view as well --RoadAhead Discuss 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Dear roadahead I would request you to not broach subjects related to conspiracy theories about an unfortunate incident. The book is a piece of investigative/speculative journalism and offers very little proof for its claims and so I would request you to comment on the issue in hand and not digress from it. LegalEagle (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Legaleagle, as you have enormously contributed to article on
Punjab Insurgency as has Sarbjit Singh in his book 'operation black thunder' as have some others. Don't pretend.117.96.151.76 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Dear
Soft Target (Book), but will like to stress again - wherever a sweeping claim is made to vitimize entire community one has to be specially careful.--RoadAhead Discuss 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Dear anon and roadahead, I always try to not digress from the issue in hand but I believe that the preceeding comments necessitates a rebuttal. I have read Dhar's 'open secrets' and it contains nothing about complicity of R&AW with the tragic air india bombing. What dhar recounts is his own forays in canadian sikh community to understand the dynamics of the community (like visiting gurdwaras, meeting with informants on the happenings in pro khalistani groups, evesdropping etc.). He was the station officer for the south canada region and his responsibilities would include such forays. This comment/memoir of Dhar has been blown up in soft target (which i have read as well) as an evidence of indian intelligence agency's hand in blowing up an aircraft to malign canadian sikhs. I had once written a small review of soft target if other editors are interested we may start a debate on this issue at the talk page of the soft target book. LegalEagle (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LegalEagle, I was referring to Paszkowski not Dhar. Just noted your comments on talkpage of the book - will comment soon. --RoadAhead Discuss 06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been nominated for deletion under claims of Conflict of interest, non Notability and that the article promotes soapbox culture. I would go over the challenges one by one. First the problem of conflict of interest the wiki guidelines prescribe that an editor should always maintain npov in all his edits; The article in question tries to highlight a problematic aspect of religious extremism, there has been articles written on such issue before like the Islamic fundamentalism, [38] so it would be uncharitable to comment that the article on sikh extremism would be a pov; thus it seems that the purpose/aim of the article does not fall foul to npov standards of wiki (it is entirely different matter as to how information are presented in the article and whether such material are pov or not). Moving on to the second challenge under notability, as Singh6 has pointed out there are several articles on wiki on the matter which touch upon sikh extremism/militancy/nationalism as one may like to call it. Thus if we try to remove any mental block we might have and try to judge the matter dispassionately we would have to come to a conclusion that there were unfortunate incidents which was result of suspected violence by people who professed sikhism and tried to use religion as a defense especially during the peak of punjab insurgency, this subject has been issue of numerous debates and has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Hence at least there should be little doubt that the article is notable. Coming to the last point raised in the AfD which I thought was quite tricky was the question of use of wiki as a propaganda platform. Any article which tries to unreservedly connect a particular section of people with extremism then it is quite uncomfortable and one gets swayed about the real motivation of the editors who contribute to the article. It is undeniable that sikh militancy had affected India in not so distant past and evidences of sikh unrest may be found in blast at cinema halls in Delhi or the forcible shutdown of plays critical of certain practices, yet to brand a religion with extremist would be again taking the tab of npov too far. Thus I believe that the title can be bit mellowed down but overall the article merits a place in wiki. LegalEagle (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's arguments are irrelevant. How is this
    WP:NOTABILITY
    ? What a ridiculous argument:
    Also, the bad faith editing by orthodox Sikh editors (Roadahead, Sikh-history, Singh6, Irek Biernet) have made sure that the article hasn't been allowed to develop. An example of the bad faith edit: insertion of fact tags[39][40] even when all the statements were cited. Another example: Complete removal of all the content and 14 references that were added to improve the article and addition of bogus cleanup notices[41]. 59.164.187.149 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respected 59.164.187.149, please do not forget that the editors supporting this article/voted to keep this article were also informed, Please see - here, here, here and here.--Singh6 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One, Sikh-history is a good editor, and actually works for NPOV on many pages, and was talking about keeping the article and adding more reliable sources from professors from U.S, U.K, and India instead of third handed sources and extremist sites. I disagree with Singh6 in trying to bring in Sunny, Singhls, and the IPs, as 2 of them basically admitted they are extremists and have left wikipedia. The only reason I can think of why he would invite them is that they're members on the Sikh wikiproject in which this article would fall under. Irek hasn't said whether he's a Sikh or not, for all we know, he's Jain. If he happens to edit wikipedia articles on Sikhism, it might be he knows some facts about Sikhism. I'm Atheist, was raised a Hindu, but I know some facts about Sikhs.
I don't see any conflict of interest, except that the creator of the article was under certain IPs that was vandalizing the Islam and Sikhism page because it was against Islam, despite it was only verses from the Sikh holy book talking about Islam, and was nearly banned. But otherwise, I don't see any conflict of interest. Deavenger (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or name Change. I think the article should be merged with some other article that covers the same topic like possibly the Khalistan, Khalistan movement, or Punjab Insurgency page. Or possibly a name change, to fundamentalism. Deavenger (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.It doesnt 'essentialize' anything; there are articles on Hindu Fundamentalism, Islamophobia and Neo-Con Evangelical groups, the same argument applies to all faiths, and I have to say that the fundamentalists are always the first to challenge/undermine/manipulate the validity of the fundamentalist 'tag' to their respective faiths. We know it exists as has been investigated by journalists, who have had death threats against them - we know these terrorist groups are banned by EU, US Governments Satanoid (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khalistan does not exist, the play Behzti in 2004 is as much part a dark side of Sikh history as it is part of the History of Theatre, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression; terrorism on the other hand is an issue we all have to deal with no matter how uncomfortable it is. Terrorism or extremism it is not confined to one ideological system but includes Sikhism as well. The issues of attacks against the media, politicians, journalists, playwrights and civilians (as was witnessed before and after 1984 in and outside India) deserves to heard and classified. The idea that Sikh Extremism does not exist is pathetic Satanoid (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This gobbledygook did not make much sense. Did you note that UK Sikh organization had already issued notice expressing no endorsement of violence against the playwright and that the identity of people who have allegedly issued threats is not known? (...or not verifiable yet?) The British Sikh Consultative Forum (BSCF) had already issued statement at the time telling these threats against Bhatti "have no endorsement from Sikh community". It is unreasonable to allege that the "Sikhs" issued death threats ...more absurd is to create blown up articles on wikipedia alleging on entire Sikh society. Coming to the play and claims of freedom of speech, it should be noted that "freedom of speech" and "responsibility" come in the same package; one is not expected to enjoy one as absurdly as one could and neglect "responsibility" altogether. When
Prince Harry wore Nazi uniform in a costume party the UK media was outraged and included several news items criticizing Prince Harry; the prince came out with an apology later. Daily Star called Harry "fool in the crown" (news link) and the whole world joined to criticize Harry for his "ill-judgement" (news link20. As for "The Gaurdian" (newspaper which went onto printing several articles potraying Bhatti as a "Sikh playwright" and endorsing her act) here is what it wrote on Prince Harry's Nazi uniform episode. Similarly, the protest from the Sikh community are that Bhatti's play is an unethical act of deliberately raking controversy. If one looks for moral of the play (which according to Bhatti is for good of Sikh community) and see her choices of depiction, it would not be difficult to find that the choices are rather unwarranted and synthetic. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 07:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. We know the article is
    Khalistan, a political movement not a religious movement 117.96.151.76 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • A bad faith tag added by User talk:Dekisugi while cunningly avoiding similar tag for new user 59.164.187.149 only because both of them had cast similar "Keep" votes. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.151.76 is located in City of Ludhiana, Punjab, India and it is several hundereds to thousands of miles away from the cities of 4 out of 6 listed IP addresses who voted over here so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last time I checked subjective arguments such as
WP:ADHOM lend little wheight to the outcome of the debate. Care to expand a little on why exactly this subject does not merit its own article, rather than regurgitating previous arguments? --Flewis(talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 68.163.246.246 is located in City of Weston, Massachusetts, USA. This user does not share its geographical location (whole state) with any of the listed IP addressed who voted on this page so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Honestly, any learned reader who reads any of the religious books like Vedas, Koran, Bible, will know that it doesn't justify religious terrorism, like the though shall not kill. Plus, Bhindranwale was once a religous missonary, and wielded lots of political power. Deavenger (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punjab insurgency and Behzti which are already there in Wikipedia. Please read this version of this article, I had re-structured it here to help you and all other respected wiki editors to understand its contents better. Kindly change your decision and lets build the existing political and single stage play articles into NPOV form. With sincere Hope--Singh6 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm aware of how the article was written. However, I believe users like you, Flewis, DJ, KnowledgeHegemony, Legal Eagle, and Sikh-history can turn this article around and actually make it a real article instead of copying parts from Behzti, Khalistan, etc. Deavenger (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khalistan. Please come back and 'avoid siding with another historical mistake. Lets vote against this hate. II will not let my hope die..--Singh6 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So you tacticly agree that "Sikhs oppose their (majority religion of India) rule and want to get independence from india itself, by the same means (extremism)". Just to add to/complete your data about the sacrifices made by sikhs to indian freedom struggle, the current Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the Deputy Chairman of the Indian Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia are sikhs, Sikhs make up 10–15% of all ranks in the Indian Army and 20% of its officers,[13] whilst Sikhs only forming 1.87% of the Indian population, which makes them over 10 times more likely to be a soldier and officer in the Indian Army than the average Indian.[14] The Sikh Regiment is the highest decorated regiment of the Indian Army,[15]. Please dont make self contradictory statements; if sikhs had a demand for independent homeland and they sought to achieve it by extremist means then the article in question has got notability as well as npov basis. Further please keep your personal view of what is right and wrong out while debating on any topic in wiki. LegalEagle (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khalistan. Hence, you have further supported the "Delete" view of many other editors in this ongoing AFD discussion. Regards, --RoadAhead =Discuss= 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Why are users being invited to multiple delete(s)? The two above individuals Zafarnamah and Beetle CT alias Irek Biernet had edit warnings not to mention Ghost users that haven't contributed much else! Its worth pointing out NOW that Singh6 and others want the Behzti article to be deleted as well (some four years after the incidents (patterns of Wikipedia terrorism ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Behzti&diff=prev&oldid=250889802 I think neutrality rests with Flewis, DJ Clayworth, KnowledgeHegemony and LegalEagle. Thanks Satanoid (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And you also have had multiple edit warnings. Not to mention that the user who gave an edit warning to CT is a banned user who has had a history of causing Edit wars and was banned for being a confirmed sockpuppet of Hkelar. Deavenger (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any POVFORK from the other articles in here. This article summarizes what the sikh extremism and especially in Canada where the term is coined. There are plenty
    WP:V. So, why delete? Dekisugi (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
'Not created in good faith' is not a reason to delete. The current version bears little resemblance to the original version, and can be improved further if necessary. It doesn't matter why it was created, it's whether the subject is an appropriate one for Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear
Sikh extremism and Khalistan movement etc areticles are same then you were able to come up with this sentence only "Maybe we need an overview article". How many overview articles would you need for existing article Khalistan movement and its history ? --Singh6 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually plenty of evidence that Sikh extremism exists. And
Wikipedia:Original research is a bad thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Hi Princhest can you please explain to me as to why you consider this article to be povfork, I agree with you that some portion may be improved to satisfy wider npov but that does not need to be the only/sole reason for deletion of the article. And I believe that wiki specifies that there should be no original research so by stating that "The article has NO original research" it seems that you tacticly support for keeping the article. Please do explain your arguements. LegalEagle (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremism is an ideology on a social or political spectrum either too far to left or too far to the right WITH a mandate. What is missing here is the public mandate. It is POV to base it on a speculation. We can't conclude it is “Sikh extremism” without any sourced ideological mandate from a single Sikh party that is considered too far from the center. It is pure speculation to think otherwise and this speculation can be covered under Sikh Khalistan movement. I was referring that the article has no original mandate present from any Sikh orgs/parties/groups that should compel us to believe that there is an ideology of "extremism" too far too the right from the moderate Sikh center. We can’t base a conclusion based on random acts of individuals, there needs to be an evidence of mandated ideology.To do so would be a personal POV, in this case especially the article is solely written in bad faith to perpetuate a Propaganda. Princhest (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I may distill our arguements, the article would be worth keeping if it is proved that there are/were some organised sikh orgs/parties/groups who believed in extreme ideology? LegalEagle (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please share the mandate of the Sikh organizations you claim is extremist. Please also share the Moderate Sikh mandate since we can't know which falls where without comparing the two. Princhest (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi as per their activity records one may categorise the following organisations as extremist (but you may always argue that it is my pov)
Bhindranwala Tigers Force of Khalistan, Dashmesh Regiment, International Sikh Youth Federation, Kamagata Maru Dal of Khalistan, Khalistan Armed Force, Khalistan Liberation Force, Khalistan Commando Force, Khalistan Liberation Army, Khalistan Liberation Front, Khalistan Liberation Organisation, Khalistan National Army,Khalistan Guerilla Force, Khalistan Security Force, Khalistan Zindabad Force, Shaheed Khalsa Force. For moderate sikh mandate i.e. organisations which espouses the true/proper sikh ideologies one may provide SGPC, SAD etc. LegalEagle (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your input LegalEagle. I asked for the mandate of these organization and you still didn't give me that. As far as I know, there mandate contains an aim to form Sikh state of Khalistan. Is that meant to be called extremist? If that is so, then this is Khalistan extremism and should be covered under the
Khalistan topic. There is no reason to fork out a topic that is speculated to be part of one phenomenon. Princhest (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.173.151 is located in City of Delhi, state of Delhi, India.This user does not share its geographical location (whole state) with any of the listed IP Addresses who voted on this page so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reason is because Sikh extremism or whatever name you choose for it, occurs within the parameters of
    Punjab Insurgency, by scholars and historians alike. 117.96.144.140 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.144.140 is located in City of Ludhiana, Punjab, India and it is several hundereds to thousands of miles away from the cities of 4 out of 6 IP addresses which voted over here so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The title of this article is essentializing an entire community of roughly 25 million Sikhs with the label "extremism" or "fundamentalism". If you want to be accurate and precise, which should be the goal in any scholarly endeavor, then, first define what you mean by extremism and then provide specific instances of that behavior by specific individuals and/or groups. Calling an entire community extremists is a bit extreme in my view. This is a new dialectic in the George Bush regime to use categories such as these to label entire communities, which include children who don't even understand their import. I strongly support the deletion of this article. Articles should be written on specific individuals and groups to describe how they conduct themselves--"Sikh extremism" or "Sikh fundamentalism" is too broad a brush with which to malign an entire community. Let's first delete this article and then focus on specifics not generalizations since they always hurt innocent people. Zafarnamah (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Vote (above) is available at
Talk:Sikh extremism where editor has clearly typed Vote for Deletion in the edit summary. It has been moved to the correct location, i.e. Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism, This editor could not visit Wikipedia after casting his vote, hence leaving his vote at an in-correct page will be injustice with his vote. Editor has been notified --Irek Biernat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Zafarnamah (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Tag User Zafarnamah had been inactive for 2 year 3 months (approx) and the first edit he makes after such long break is to vote for deletion of the article Sikh Extremism. Lest other users may feel that I am cunning (though I would love to be) I would like to state that I have voted for keeping the article under consideration, asked some uncomfortable question to Beetle CT and this is my first tagging inspired by Dekisugi and Singh6. LegalEagle (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK article and similar attempts at another article which he/she created after this one? It will be better if you can focus on subject matter and not attempt at creating prejudice in this argument. Your comments can be viewed as personal attack on other editor. May I also point you to Wikipedia policy "comment on the text not the contributor"? --RoadAhead =Discuss= 05:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • His initial Biography
  • Here is the list of all the IP addresses (registered to Easynet Ltd,
    BSkyB
    Broadband) which he has used so far:
90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Here he has mistakenly proved his link with one of above mentioned IP Addresses.
  • He was blocked several times because of his same hatefull acts but wikipedia could not find a permanent solution so far.
  • He is simply using his manipulation skills to spread baseless hate against a religion, which he hates, through this article. Remember, He can delete contents from an editor's talk page and 'can put the blame on the victim immediately afterwards. He, through
    WP:POV against Sikhism on Wikipedia. Khalistan movement was a political movement similar to Indian independence movement. Both of these came into existence because of major independence issues felt by certain citizens of their respective countries. --Irek Biernat (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
90.196.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
--Singh6 (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Question for the neutral admin(s) Flewis, KnowledgeHedgemony & DJ Clayworth. Can we finally come to a fair conclusion on this subject. I would like to point out that there are variants of the 117.*.*.* octet IP's

user:117.96.151.76

user:117.96.173.151

user:117.96.144.140

and can we do something about the canvassing -- all NEW/anon orthodox Sikh editors are being informed by the nominator to delete (The admins were also asked, but knew of the articles' existence anyway)

It seems as if Singh6 has voted twice to delete this article Satanoid (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid, can you stop creating bad faith? If we go by your "NEW/annon....editors" allegation, the first one who will get discredited from this page will be you because you are as new as these anons and the article under question is your first on wikipedia. Also, you are often found indulding in ad-hominem attacks on other editors like you did above in your comments by first assuming and then addressing the religious affliations. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References in the talk

  1. ^ http://lis.epfl.ch/research/projects/EvolutionOfAnalogNetworks/ReverseEngineeringGeneRegulatoryNetworks/DREAMChallenges.php
  2. ^ http://www.thaindian.com/news-snippet/ajay-puri-makes-us-proud-again-4463.html
  3. ^ http://www.worldamazingrecords.com/2006/02/amazing-kids-ajay-puri-youngest-web.html
  4. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/23/airindia-inquiry.html
  5. ^ http://www.tehelka.com/story_main33.asp?filename=Ne040807operation_silence.asp
  6. ^ http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58240583.html?dids=58240583:58240583&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+13%2C+1987&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Sikh+Separatists+Masquerade+as+Police+to+Stage+India's+Biggest+Bank+Robbery&pqatl=google
  7. ^ http://lifestyle-india.blogspot.com/2007/07/giani-zail-singh.html
  8. ^ http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/institutes/smisscol.html
  9. ^ http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2002-08/a-2002-08-15-19-Indian.cfm
  10. ^ http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/singh/Sikh_Contribution.htm
  11. ^ http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/sikhs_iph.htm
  12. ^ http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/19981001/27450124.html
  13. doi:10.2307/2760119
    . Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  14. ^ "After partition: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh". BBC In Depth. BBC News. 2007-08-08. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  15. ^ "Sikh Regiment". Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  16. ^ http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/IDE822/
  17. ^ http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061000a.htm
  18. ^ http://www.info-sikh.com/PageRSS1.html
  19. ^ http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1136510569&type=news
  20. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/nun-tells-of-rape-by-hindu-attackers-972785.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

MuZemike (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Poof

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

At best, a dictionary definition. Not a disambiguation page, since nothing in this article links to anything. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if this word is really commonly used in Britain for homosexuals (I can't tell), otherwise redirect to Florida Philharmonic Orchestra. – sgeureka t•c 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a British slang name for them, per the AHD and the Random House Unabridged. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a dictionary, wiktionary version already exists. Khukri 10:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's already in Wiktionary, Wikipedia is most emphatically not a dictionary. RayAYang (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a dictionary. The orchestra can be listed under POOF if it's considered significant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make article go POOF! — this belongs in Wiktionary, not here.
    MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm going
    r) 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    homosexual. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    homosexual, ensure term is mentioned there. Has been current UK slang for over 45 years, and still current. N.B. plural usually "pooves". Another UK variant is "poofter" --Philcha (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. MBisanz talk 03:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Wotton

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

Non-notable person, notable for

one event only. The notable details about this person are covered extensively at 2004 Palm Island death in custody Mattinbgn\talk 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This is a disputed PROD, no reason for disputing given. -- 08:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are only three references to
Lex Wotton on that page and one link. It is incorrect to say that the notable details are covered extensively
(Starman005 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply
]
There is more being said [51] here at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lex Wotton and [52] here at Talk:Lex Wotton.
(Starman005 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment probably best to bring the discussion here on the topic. The notable details, i.e. his arrest and trial are covered in the article I listed. The rest is filler, similar to the non-notable detail included in the Chris Hurley article (which perhaps should also be listed under BLP1E). We should be covering the event not the person. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Article was never nominated for AFD, and speedy deletions are not listed on this page. If the speedy is declined, then, by all means, renominate for AFD. But, for now, let the speedy run its course. Non-admin closure.

MuZemike (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Behlow Family from 1622-2008

Behlow Family from 1622-2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have nominated this article for speedy delete. It lacks any references, and fails notability. It appears to be an ancestry piece on the migration of a family to America.Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Y, per A3, non-admin close.. ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the Caribbean Community

Life in the Caribbean Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was never developed. Louis Waweru  Talk  06:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per the above. ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London 2012 Olympic Legacy

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

original research, orphan. Journalistic essay discussing gov't expenditure on the Olympics. Worthwhile topic for a news site but inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. OttoTheFish (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Model Theory

Conceptual Model Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails our notability guidelines per

talk) 06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, it looks like it should be speedied per

talk) 06:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete per

WP:NFT. Lenticel (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Extreme pong

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

Edit summary for creation says "I have created a wiki page about a new sport that does not currently have any information on the internet. I am simply trying to get the game publicized." So not notable by the author's admission.

WP:NFT. PROD removed with no explanation. KCinDC (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie George Campbell

Bonnie George Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page to be deleted, poem moved to Wikisource, synopsis to Child Ballads. Could use a hand on this one if someone has a moment...List of the Child Ballads shows a great deal of effort, but not every one of these poems is individually notable (though some definitely are). I don't know how to handle this sort of major cleanup. Kickstart70TC 06:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Strong and rapid Keep By established practice every every one of these ballads is in fact separately notable by our established standards for musics and for literature.Much other traditional literature and musics is also,but this is the central body for anglo-american traditions. . The Child Ballad collection itself lists abundant earlier sources for variant forms, historical analogs, geographic variation, all of this with respect to be the text and also to the the music/ Generations of scholarhip in folklore and music and traditional culture have deal with this corpus of material over the following century., There is no shortage of academic works--there is no shortage of popular renditions and discussions either--many of them famous. There are some better known than others, but every individual one there is worthy of a full detailed article done carefully and fully with an awareness of the tradition and of the scholarship. DGG (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very dramatic, but you've still not helped prove notability of this single poem for it's own page. --Kickstart70TC 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the notability of the collection does not necessarily confer notability to each ballad within it. This sort of argument has been presented for prose and poetry repeatedly...not every character in a notable piece of fiction is notable enough for their own page, not every chapter in a book is notable enough for discussion, and not every scene in a movie is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia...but some definitely are. This Afd is not about the notability of the Child Ballads. It's about this specific poem/ballad. Show the specific notability of this ballad and I will gladly withdraw the Afd. I am no wikipedia deletionist! --Kickstart70TC 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I showed you the specific notability of this ballad with the Google Books link above.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No, you showed me a list of books that contain this ballad, along with all of the other ballads. You have not expressed specific notability of this ballad. --Kickstart70TC 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that Wikisource is the place for the content of these ballads, not Wikipedia. No matter what the outcome of this Afd, that should happen. --Kickstart70TC 03:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Grabosch

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

A. short and unlikely to be expanded. I've copied some info to the main page (Alles was zählt), omit. episode-specific. Skarebo (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I can't speak german, which most the coverage of him is in but but I did find at least one exclusive article on him ([53]) and both the German and Polish language Wikipedia's have an article on him and I hear that the German Wikipedia has strict Notability criterion. Also, the German Wikipedia article has a not insignificant list of roles in what appear to be notable productions. Icewedge (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The problem with an article's current state is that it's centered not on the actor, but only on one of the characters he played – the notability of the actor is unclear and the subject is confusing… Skarebo (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the plot information and rewritten the article to a stub, with two citations. Icewedge (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball statistics software

Basketball statistics software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacks any content NeuGye (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delver Social Search

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

This article describes a currently non-notable social search engine. Of the two references, one doesn't mention the company at all, and one only does in comments to a blog entry. "Social Search" may be notable, but this particular social search engine is not--yet, at least, and Wikipedia is

not a crystal ball. Bongomatic 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. I do think that the discussion honed in on the core issue - whether these organizations in combination make a proper encyclopedia topic. Discussion as to the proper scope of the article may continue on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) N.B. Per request, I will state that I believe that that through continued collaboration the article can be improved sufficiently to avoid a renomination. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bethmanns and Rothschilds

Bethmanns and Rothschilds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is written like an essay and does not really add to what is already in articles like Rothschild family. I have never heard of the Bethmanns banking dynasty, so on this point I have no idea. Basically the article links two Jewish banking dynasties and doesn't really say a whole lot else. Also, there is naturally concerns about neutrality and what have you and overall it's just a lot of opinion that doesn't look like it can be salvaged. If any of it is useful, it should go into Rothschild family. Laval (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have shown by my response to roux's criticism (see Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds), I am willing to take on board suggestions for improvement. The nominator does not appear to have read closely, because the Article clearly states that the Bethmanns were not Jewish. As the Article's main author I recuse myself from voting on the deletion request.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to recuse yourself. This is not a "vote". You can "support" or "oppose" deletion or propose an alternate solution as I have in case there is no consensus for deletion. Laval (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strikes me as a topic based on original research and synthesis. Merge what's worthwhile into the other articles and delete this one. It's like a GM and Ford article. If I'm wrong add some references establishing this topic as notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are already in the article, enough to establish that this is a topic deserving of its own article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A useful combination topic, though I would suggest re-titling it a little more generally, perhaps to Jewish financial houses in Frankfurt. This is a major historical subject, and a useful comparison. It s a little limited as is, so instead of dividing it up, we can build on it. DGG (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My error there, I admit that, recognizing one name and not the other, I carelessly assumed both families were Jewish. so it should be Financial houses in Frankfort
  • Good finds, Banime. I was aware of Udo Heyn already but not the other sources. All of them must be studied for the Article. I have been a bit laggardly of late and could should be farther ahead by now. I realize that the article needs more work and am prepared to do what I can to improve it. Just so anyone who wants to pitch in knows: English-language sources that are online, or mostly online, include (see the bibliography) Corti, Heyn, Holtfrerich, Stern: collaboration is by no means restricted to editors with access to libraries in Germany.
Regarding the question why this article cannot be merged into the Rothschild or Bethmann family articles: it is for the same reasons that any Wikipedia sub-article gets split off from its main article: to keep the length of the main article to a manageable length, to serve up in-depth information to those who want it instead of to all readers, and to avoid duplication. For if the unique content were transferred to Bethmanns it would be lacking at Rothschilds and vice versa. To copy it to both would be wasteful, and at least at Rothschilds would unbalance their article because IMHO Rothschilds is far too sketchy and sparsely written. With respect, the comparison to a fictitious "Obama and John F. Kennedy" article is silly, these two people never met and did not dynamically interact and influence each other as the Bethmanns and the Rothschilds did, complete with their impact on the broader European financial landscape and political events. The unfolding of this dynamic needs to be fleshed out more, but I already acknowledged that.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The biggest and overriding problem with this article is that it's not a topic for an encyclopedia. By that I mean to say this is an interesting essay topic, but I wouldn't expect to find it (or search for it) in an encyclopedia. The information is interesting, but might best be included in the relevant articles rather than creating a topic that is original.
  • Why not an article on "The Rothchilds and JP Morgan? Or the "German banks of this era and the Swiss banks" of this era? Or just "German and Swiss banks". Or an "Obama and John F Kennedy" article. "Banking and bartering". These are all fascinating and worthy topics. But this is an encyclopedia. I am not trying to criticize, but to explain the problem as I see it.
  • I think the authors and editors interested in this article need to think broadly about how to best fit this article into an encyclopedia. Should they work on the respective articles of the two banking families? Create a new article about the History of banking in Frankfurt? I don't know. But I still think this topic is contrived, and that's after looking at the new sources you provided Banime. You just haven't established for me that these two banking families are so intertwined and interconnected that they are an appropriate combined article topic. I'm not surprised to find them discussed together in books, just as I wouldn't be surprised to find Citibank and Bank of America discussed together. But why an article about both, together? Why not include the relevant information on the rivalry and whatever interrelations they had in the respective articles?
  • The second problem (which is not unrelated to the first) is that the article is written like an essay. It needs to be made encyclopedic. I would be happy to help address this, but per my topic title related concern, I don't think it makes sense at this point. Thank you for taking the time to consider my point of view, I hope it's helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the good explanation. I think the comparison to Citibank and Bank of America is a little off though since they're not pretty much the two only decision making banks in a region. I also see your points, however the biggest thing that stands out to me is what I found in Giebelhausen that, due specifically to both Bethmann and Rothschild, Frankfurt became an international financial powerhouse. I think that makes the topic of both of them notable and would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, I also see your point about how most of the information could also go into each separate article. Hmm. Well, for now I'll maintain my keep, and we'll see what consensus comes up with. --Banime (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Banime. I agree with his reasoning and congratulate him on his good finds. While the article currently reads like an
    WP:OR essay, this problem can be addressed by rewriting it, not deleting it. As Banime points out, there are reliable sources treating them as a common entity and those sources are all we need to establish notability of the subject at hand. How the article should look like and such is not a question of this AfD. SoWhy 12:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep per
WP:NOTABLE, but I would say it definitely requires sources. 89.243.56.221 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What part of
WP:NOTABLE? --Banime (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

(WOO HOO! EDIT CONFLICT) Earlier in this deletion review, three editors asked me separately to cast a vote. I declined this suggestion and decided to recuse myself instead, since any Keep vote from me would naturally invite the retort, "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" However, I do wish to make a recommendation now. But first, some comments. Some of the criticisms in this review have been of questionable utility:

  • "there is naturally concerns about neutrality and what have you" -- hmmm.... what?
  • "article links two Jewish banking dynasties" -- in fact: Rothschilds Jewish, Bethmanns Lutherans
  • "you have written it in such a way that it is your work and would be difficult for others to change without having to rewrite the entire article" (in fact, every article on WP is open to arbitrary editing and rewriting, this one is no exception)
  • "no sources, including those mentioned here, have these families as a joint topic" -- in fact, numerous sources among those cited in the bibliography study the rivalry between the Houses of Bethmann and Rothschild in detail.

Holtfrerich in Frankfurt as a Financial Center refers to the Bethmanns 31 times and to the Rothschilds 30 times (Google Books preview); Corti in Rise of the House of Rothschild refers to the Bethmann 28 times (Google Books preview); Udo Heyn in Private Banking and Industrialization especially covers this topic, his book refers to Bethmanns 30 times and to Rothschilds 35 times, the rivalry between the two houses is addressed at several points including pp. 98, 109, 110, for example on p.98:

Foremost among the great private bankers in Frankfurt, the Gebrueder Bethmann opposed the Rothschilds throughout our entire period. From the early decades of the nineteenth century, the two kept clashing across the entire continent from Paris, Vienna and Berlin to Frankfurt and the German provinces...

(Google Books preview).

These three English-language sources are available online, which brings me to my next point. In

WP:OWNed
. If you do not live in Germany, you may not be able to get your hands on all the German books, but just the three above can serve as a juicy steak to sink your teeth into. I believe this conclusively takes care of questions of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

Now, about WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:TONE and WP:SYNTHESIS.

As to the first, full disclosure: I encountered Johann Philipp Freiherr von Bethmann (1924-2007) once and one of his sons attended the same high school as I. However, he was a grade ahead of me and we did not know each other at all well. I have not been in contact with any of the family since school days and in particular have not had any contact with them since I began writing these articles. What brought me to Wikipedia originally was the grotesque falsehoods promulgated by the author of a work of pseudohistory about, among numerous other topics, the Bethmann family (see my exchanges with that individual at Talk:The Jew of Linz#False claims about Jewish descent of the Bethmann family). In the course of that discussion, I decided to translate de:Bethmann (Familie) from the German Wikipedia, and having once begun, I discovered that I liked it and began writing some of my own articles. However, I am not employing any first-hand or privileged information whatsover but working solely from published secondary sources. I write without fear or favor and see no reason to suppress any information about skeletons in the Bethmann family closet that I encounter (see, for example, my footnote about the planned investment in the slave trade in the Johann Jakob Bethmann article.)

Next, the matter of WP:TONE. I realize that some of my descriptions of Simon Moritz von Bethmann (1768-1826) have been overly adulatory and hence stray from NPOV. In my defense, I would say that some historians describing him have likewise run afoul of that principle. Some historical personages are just bone evil, and others (like SMvB) are examples of humanity's finest. However, I realize that I went too far and have begun rewriting some of the descriptions. As to WP:SYNTHESIS, I am not aiming to develop a thesis here. My aim is to tell an exciting story but to tell it exclusively based on the already published accounts by reputable authors, without interference or embellishment. There is an element of complication because the Article combines two notable subjects into a single topic. However, there is precedent for that. Many dozens of Wikipedia articles are of the form "A and B", and some of them are highly rated. To see but a few examples, enter "Religion and" into the search box and see what comes up. Likewise for "Christianity and" or "Differences between". There even is an Article on the extremely contentious topic of Comparison of Windows and Linux that survived two AfD nominations. The trick in writing this kind of Article well, I think, is to avoid reduplication of content already in the "A" and the "B" article, and to limit oneself strictly to notable interaction between the two.

Finally, there is the question of the current condition of the article. I am well aware that there are many holes. Some of the sources I have yet to read, other sources that I read have yet to be worked into the Article. (I would hope that others join forces with me here.) The Article has been rated (not by me) as "C-Class", so that there is no danger of readers taking it as an example of the finest work that Wikipedia is capable of. Of course there is more work to be done, but that should not be a reason for deletion.

And that brings me to my recommendation. Based on what I wrote above, I recommend that the closing admin close this discussion not as a Keep/no consensus/delete, but by sending it back as a Dismiss to where it should be in the first place, namely the Article's Talk page, in line with

WP:ATD, which states:

The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like you were three minutes too late for the AfD, however you can put all this at the talk page of the article so people see it.--Banime (talk) 14:02, 17 November 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 keep; redirected to WREH. Alexius08 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reachfm

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

Most of the article is copied from reachfm. What is not copied from there is copied from WREH, (check history for exact match, that I have reverted). Article appears to be in violation of NPOV, blatant advertising and notability. MatthewYeager 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that is true it should be tagged as a copyright violation. Unfortunately the station's site is down, so I can't check that. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, easy. Redirect to the existing WREH, which eliminates the copyvio problems (although we might want to mark them, if the copyvio turns out to be true). Also eliminates that ugly odor of spam. whew! --Lockley (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FYI, looks like a small edit war going on at
Reachfm and WREH, keeps re-inserting this same text into that page. This is material that looks strongly promotional in tone. I'll make a note on the talk page for WREH, and, you know what, I'm going to go ahead and redirect the page. My mind can be changed; just trying to be proactive. --Lockley (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nom should be withdrawn as
    Reachfm simply redirects to the callsign (as made sense anyway). Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagmar

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

Appears to be non-notable role-playing game. Only references are in Portuguese, but are to the game's sites. Can't see evidence of third-party references. The ghits for Tagar seem to mostly be player names in other RPGs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being the first Brazilian RPG would make them notable if there was proof. Right now it looks like a typical 13 in a dozen game. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. See the section GSA Editora on this page. While I wouldn't necessarily trust this site, it does claim that Tagmar was at least created by the first Brazilian RPG-making company.
      DARTH PANDAtalk 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is still too trivial. Does not seem to have enough coverage from
independent sources to stabilish notability. Tosqueira (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you help out with the last source? It looks like a chapter in a book that covers Portuguese RPGs, but I really can't tell. In any case, the coverage in the first source is boarder-line enough given the things found above (IMO of course). Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is trivial. The last source is not a book about RPGs, it seems to be an
WP:RS. Tosqueira (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
An academic essay would be fair game. WP:OR simply prevents us from adding our own original research. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability and sourcing. Trivial coverage in Portgugese sources will not allow us to construct a good encyclopedia article. Fletcher (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Morals (TV Series)

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

Did this run for one show or one series? Sources differ. Er, no, make that the article differs, since there is only one source and it's not a reliable one anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails criteria for
    WP:NOTFILM. Keep (see comment below) - There may have been 12 episodes made, but that is not confirmed, And only episode appears to have aired, on October 30, 1996 and disappeared without any news comment. — CactusWriter | needles 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep but expand. Notability establisheed by the fact it aired on CBS and all series that air on national networks whether for 1 episode or 20 years are inherently notable. For just one random example, see The Will. The present article needs more information added, especially as the IMDb listing is substandard -- doesn't even indicate what network it was on. But it was on CBS so therefore there must be an article on this because all nationally broadcast TV series on major networks regardless of duration are notable. I'm at least going to add a bit of information and a couple of categories. 23skidoo (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. I created the article, but I have only a passing interest in the subject, so I'm semi-objective :). Two things, though, seem to make it noteworthy to me. The first is, as 23skidoo pointed out, it did air on a major network, if only for one episode. The second is that it only aired for one episode. Given the labor involved in moving a show to air, and the costs involved for a network, it is rare for a show to actually make it to air only to fail so quickly. Squalk25 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it should be acknowledged that Squalk25 has now added two additional sources to the article: one is TV Guide and the other is the New York Times; both qualify as non-trivial third-party sources, I would think. 23skidoo (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Shales. "'Morals' not so much a comedy as a crime". San Diego Union-Tribune. November 7, 1996. E3.
  • Allan Johnson. "Boorish Bochco: Stereotypical 'Public Morals' is nothing to laugh at". Chicago Tribune. November 6, 1996. 3.
  • "CBS cancels 'Public Morals' after 1 episode". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. November 6, 1996. D4.
  • "True-blue actor has little time to mourn 'Morals'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. December 1 1996. E2.
I'll try to add some of those to the article later. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks alright (now). Aired on a major network (it doesnt really matter for how long), so along with the sources Zagalejo mentioned, notability is not that much of a concern (anymore). – sgeureka t•c 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability now established per
    the usual precedent. WilyD 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to London Borough of Havering. MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the London Borough of Havering

Leader of the London Borough of Havering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

A list of non notables and a list of duties. Mayor/Lord Mayor of a major city may be a notable position but not this. However, this is a list of people who fail

WP:POLITICIAN Nuttah (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect relevant content to London Borough of Havering. I cite precedent of almost every city's article out there that explains how the local government operates and is typically elected, but does not necessarily keep a listing of every person who held a given office. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dennis: we don't create lists of nonnotable people simply because they held a position that doesn't make them notable. As noted by nominator, this isn't a notable position. Assuming that the borough is a reliable source about itself (I can't imagine why it wouldn't be), this would be a useful part of the borough's article. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect -- The target should however be an article on Havering Council, not one on the whole Borough. I note that none of the leaders appears to have a bio article. This suggests that (like most local councillors they are NN). The list of leaders should probably therefore be deleted in the merge process
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-). MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Dave Smith (Coronation Street)

Dave Smith (Coronation Street) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Contested redirect to

plot summary. McWomble (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with

List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-) - SJB147 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh sorry I meant (1970-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJB147 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Not notable enough for individual page. --Kickstart70TC 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but merge properly and fully The existing lists for t his characters are inadequate even for the most minor character of background fixture--they give the name, but nothing important about the role in the story and relationships with the other characters, and that's 00000 the real encyclopedic information--the years and episodes present & names of he actors are important too, but that sort of content ss just the structure--what they did and said is the substance. Separate articles may not be justified , but a good combination article with a psragraph or two about each, with a picture, a general description, and a summary of the tole and relationsips and,i f relevant the character development, is the proper encyclopedic content. WP coverage of fiction should not be only plot-- but it should be mainly plot as supported by characters. What's important about fiction is the story,not the production details. DGG (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rhodes

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

Several notable writing credits, but no real biographical sources found. Seems to fail notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else merge this? I'm totally unfamiliar with the series and have no idea what is pertinent or what isn't. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Board of Shadowy Figures

Secret Board of Shadowy Figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This group of characters does not establish

unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm taking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1 into account as well. Some form of centralised discussion is probably required on how to deal with these articles on a general basis, not just on a per-month basis.  Sandstein  18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Purely as a time-saving measure, I'm rollbacking the AfD tags on these articles rather than removing them manually.  Sandstein  18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 1, 2003

August 1, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
August 2, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 3, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 4, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 5, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 6, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 7, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 8, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 9, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 11, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 12, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 13, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 14, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 15, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 16, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 17, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 18, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 19, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 20, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 21, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 22, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 23, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 24, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 25, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 26, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 27, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 28, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 29, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 30, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
August 31, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Subjects fail

news items of no particular encyclopaedic merit (those which are would already have their own articles, rendering these redundant. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Don't see that at all: Armistice Day and 11 November 2003 are both subsets of 11 November. Until it's demonstrated why individual days is
    datecruft. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It all comes down to policy. Of course, there's nothing wrong with lobbying for a change in current policy. If I understand correctly, the policy of doing articles for individual months, such as
WP:NEWS would apply to these particular articles, but it would be a moot point until there are rules for "exact-day" pages on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If the current system is month articles, then we want an
August 2003 would be the natural conclusion (and the one I'd endorse, unless someone's up to Portalifying the thing as per my comment above). -- Jao (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Never mind. I assumed they were transcluded into
August 2003 as I've seen that done on other month articles from around that time, but it seems we're not that consistent. So it all comes down to how much detail we want in the month articles. Conclusion stricken. -- Jao (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge. Exactly the same information will still be available if they're merged to
    August 2003, along with a handy-dandy redirect from the current title. More, in fact, given that some events cause 'ongoing situations" which last for more than 24 hours. Considerable numbers of similar day-specific articles have been merged in the past - including the entirety of January, February, and June 2003. I see no reason not to do likewise here. Note, BTW, that five other months from 2003 also have similar daily articles (see Category:Days in 2003). They should be merged as well. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to August 2003: This was discussed at some length here, here, and here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Grutness. --John (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that, I think that merge gives the closing administrator a safety valve. I don't think that it's realistic to "merge" 31 pages into one page, and I think that the precedent set should be to remind people to stick to existing formats until those formats are changed, through discussion. On the other hand, merge is a nicer way than delete to accomplish the same purpose. Whether one says "Don't try this shit again!" or "Please don't do this until the rules change, thank you," the end result is the same. I think that the free market would take care of an an overly large page. Because a default to keep would be a major change in format, the "easy way out"-- i.e., no consensus-- would be the worst of all worlds. Anyone seriously thinking about closing the discussion with the words "no consensus" should probably get some consensus from other admins. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not realistic to merge 31 tiny articles into one larger article? The same has been done frequently for "list of minor characters in..." type articles, and also - more tellingly - for several of the other articles for days in 2003. In other words, a precedent of this kind has already been set. All of February's articles were merged into
February 2003, January's and June's likewise - the redirects all still exist in Category:Days in 2003. It would make perfect sense to do so here and - if I had not been involved in the debate - I would quite willingly have done so as a closing admin. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • When I say I don't think it's realistic, I don't mean that it's impossible. Shift, down arrow, CTRL + C, CTRL +V, repeat 30 more times. But I don't think it's realistic to expect that one will get a quality article, as
    March 2003 demonstrates. As you point out, these really are "tiny" articles, but it's not because nothing happened on any particular day. Rather, they consist of "tiny news", with a sentence or two about this happened, and that happened, and then something else happened. I liken it to being at a party, and running into a boring man or woman who gives a rambling monologue about what happened that day. For one of the dates, the "narrative" would go like this, "The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom claims attempts by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to destroy allegedly important documents about its treatment of BBC source Dr. David Kelly in the weeks before his suicide were foiled by a security guard, who found the documents scheduled for destruction and called the police. The MoD insists the documents were not that important but will now be preserved and supplied to the Hutton Inquiry into the Kelly case. The United Nations authorizes an international peacekeeping force for Liberia. The United States is criticized by members of the Security Council for insisting that UN peacekeepers serving in Liberia be granted immunity from war crimes prosecution. The U.S. demand is described by its critics as a breach of international law. A huge condominium complex under construction in San Diego, California is destroyed, supposedly by the Earth Liberation Front. José Bové, a radical French activist against genetically modified food, is released from prison after serving only five weeks of a 10-month jail sentence. Israeli Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein publicly rebukes Ariel Sharon's son Gilad for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into graft and influence peddling. Scientists announce that the ozone layer may be showing signs of recovery due to an international ban on chlorofluorocarbons." I may be wrong. The other thirty segments might be less mind-numbing. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's Windows-speak, is it? Tony (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good try, I guess. I'm afraid I'll never be able to sound as interesting as a Windows technical manual. I can imagine what the news would sound like if a tech guy wrote it-- "Although the White House remains the default setting, the executive unit variable is subject to automatic review on a quadrennial basis in years that, when divided by four, remain integers... users were provided at least two options and option "O" received more geographical area points than option "M" in the overall process, and the specifications will be implemented 77 days after the completion..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
Heh - I love it! Grutness...wha? 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) (PS - I've changed the indents slightly to make things clearer)[reply]
    • Sounds fine to me for a list article, which these articles basically are. Combined into a month article, they would give a chronological list of things that happened during the month, but also have the ability to give overviews to the whole month. A lot of chronological list articles seem pretty boring when you just consider them as one item after another, the way you are doing - but if you were researching the history of the David Kelly incident, or the timeline of UN peacekeeping, it would be very useful to see what other events were going on at about the same time. That's why these month articles exist. Sure, a lot of them don't make riveting reading, but that could be said of many articles on Wikipedia. Personally, I don't see anything riveting about articles on obscure mathematical laws or characters in Pokémon, but they exist as sources if information - a major reason for an encyclopedia to exist. Grutness...wha? 05:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great discussion guys! I stand by my merge per Grutness. --John (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, and per
    WP:BEFORE. Dates are obvious search terms, and more or less a poster-child (calendar-child?) for the policy that says to create useful redirects instead of bogging down AFD. Neier (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to
    August 2003 per prior established consensus. None of these articles seem so big as to make the article for the entire month too large. Any excessive detail can be merged to an article on an appropriate topic and linked to from the month article. DHowell (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation (

WP:CSD#G12). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Amiya Ranjan Bandyopadhyay

Amiya Ranjan Bandyopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is VERY weaseled, and overly positive. Zero sources. Could be autobiographical. Kortaggio (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is highly questionable. I got less than two pages of google hits, and it was not clear that all of those were legitimate. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G12 as copyright violation of this website. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.santanubandyopadhyay.com/home.html (

WP:CSD#G12). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Santanu banerjee

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

The page is extremely weaseled. Zero sources. Appears to be autobiography. Kortaggio (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Lexie Fyfe . MBisanz talk 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience (professional wrestling)

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

Non-notable tag team, whose contents can be covered in a couple of sentences in the individual wrestler's articles. Nikki311 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    X 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arc clone files

Arc clone files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable free hosted web comic. Icewedge (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiction Online

Flash Fiction Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable online literary magazine. Serious

conflict of interest is present as well, as the article creator is also the editor of the magazine. He even links to his userpage on the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm on the fence. (Disclosure: I submitted a story to them in the past) 5200 visitors a month with 1000 subscribers is not a lot and the article is about a mag that is less than a year old. On the other hand, it pays professional rates (many new online publications don't) and they have notable columnists. Right now these are the external links:
    • Duotrope Digest listing for Flash Fiction Online (print market engine)
    • "Glossary of Terms". Duotrope's Digest. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. (explains the term professional market)
    • "Membership Requirements". SFWA. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. (further backs up previous term)
    • Ralan's Specfic and Humor Webstravaganza professional listings page (another print market engine)
    • Bruce Holland Rogers's Author Page at Flash Fiction Online, showing "Short-Short Sighted" column entries (column on own website).

In other words, this needs some serious references if it is to stay. - Mgm|(talk) 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notability for this market has already been established on the
Flash Fiction page in the discussion section. It's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I am the editor of the magazine and the creator of the entry. When I initially created the article for the 'zine, I specified the ways in which the magazine is notable. If the question relates to conflict of interest (which I don't see explicitly mentioned in the deletion policy), why not tag it with NPOV instead? While I think the language is pretty objective, I am open to making it more objective if people take issue with it.

The circulation isn't large, but popularity isn't the only thing that differentiates one magazine from others: Consider that "Indira Ghandi" gets 62,000 hits on Google, while "Britney Spears" gets 91 million. I have Hugo and Bram Stoker award-winning authors on the site, among others, and as of this month (November 2008) Flash Fiction Online is the only flash fiction-only magazine to have completed all of the qualifications for being listed as a professional magazine by the SFWA. (The application is in, but I haven't received word back from them yet.)

Please note that I am not trying to use Wikipedia to increase my circulation. When you search for "Flash Fiction" in Wikipedia, you get the Flash Fiction entry, not the Flash Fiction Online entry; when you search for "Flash Fiction" in Google, Flash Fiction Online is already #2, right behind (surprise!) the Flash Fiction Wikipedia entry. Less than 1% of the current entries in my log show that someone entered from the Flash Fiction Online Wikipedia page. So I'm not gaming the system here, I'm just making sure that this publication has an entry.Jdfreivald (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs more sources to demonstrate notability, but a simple lack of sources included in the article is not enough to delete, unless the sources simply do not exist. Based on the article, they seem to be notable, though the magazine editor being the major author of the article makes this a difficult call. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added two references to the article: rankings in Preditors & Editors poll (fictionzine and artist), and CNN.com reference.Jdfreivald (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz talk 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 4 1995

January 4 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia doesn't have date-specific articles this far back in time - not sure what to do with it? The information is already included elsewhere, in the date and year articles respectively, which is why I am listing it for deletion. roleplayer 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I know there was a discussion some time ago (I commented in it!), although I don't know where to find it and therefore can't use it to support my answer (or to weaken it, for that matter), about having specific articles on days. As I said there: it makes sense to have date-specific articles for really important days (a recent example being September 11, 2001), but as this date is surely not one of significance, it doesn't deserve its own article. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a random day of little lasting significance. Article has practically no information, and no sources.kuwabaratheman (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like with that great wad of dates from August 2003. 'tis datecruft. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason for having an encyclopedia article written about it. --DAJF (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—ridiculous for an article topic, and a MOS breach in its formating. Tony (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others or Merge names into
    talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Horrors. MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin Joe (The Horrors)

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

Your reason here

  • Merge with
    talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Papp

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

Clear self-promotion as every external link has a connection to her (

reliable sources); in places, this reads as a resume; at other places, it reads like a magazine article. Prodded, tag removed by User:Oo7565. B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted due to previous deletion via Afd (under the name BulletBall, see below). GarrettTalk 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletball

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

Tagged for speedy however may be salvageable. Questions arise as to notability - for discussion by the wider community. I am making a procedural nomination only and offer no opinion as to keep or delete. --VS talk 11:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this This has been put through the wringer already and is actually up for its third deletion:
The only difference here is that the original spelling capitalized both Bs. I can see no change in the status of this thing and suggest it should be deleted post haste. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millenium Shakespeare

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

Non-notable book series with COI (the main user is User:Millenium Shakespeare) to boot. A Google search shows only 26 results, and a lot of those don't have anything to do with the series. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Besides the 67 ghits under that spelling, there are 859 under Millennium shakespeare. Google doesn't combine intelligently, so the user has to). This is not an edition of shakespeare's plays, but a retelling as a story in modern easy to read English, essentially a new try to beat the classic but old-fashioned Lambs' Tales from Shakespeare.--as far as the actual story goes, I think it's much inferior to Lamb, with many but in my opinion mediocre illustrations. I expect every children's library will buy a set, eventually, though it's coming out very slowly, volume by volume--only 3 plays so far after 2 years. The web site is not very reassuring, but they did actually get sponsorship from the RSC. They claim to have sold 2 million copies, which would make it notable. This was also added under the spelling Millennium Shakespeare. I made some suggestions about it. The ed in qy seems to have taken them into account in the new article. If we keep it, we should decide on the official spelling & redirect the other. DGG (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm aware now that it's misspelled but I wasn't when I initially did the search. (I.E. it's not as if I was deliberately ignoring that to make the results look bad...I just didn't pay attention and copied and pasted the title).--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks promotional. DGG's web search produces mostly forum and mailing list entries as well as other promotional material. No real evidence of notability given. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs a
    reliable source or two to establish notability. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be anything. AndyJones (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Crow

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

This article was tagged for deletion without a rationale a few months ago. I removed it after a few days of silence. The creator, a newbie, took that as an opportunity to remove the maintenance tags. That brought the nominator back, this time with a short comment on the article's talk page and a reinstatement of the AfD and maintenance tags. The creator thinks the tagging is vandalism, the nominator is uncommunicative, the creator has a CoI, the article is borderline A7 for want of an assertion... so the community needs to think about this, not a lone admin. As such, I have no opinion either way. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an
Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 18:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noble and fascinating an operation as the Austin Holistic Dance Collective (or wherever Mr Crow works from) maybe, it doesn't render him notable and worthy of inclusion in teh 'pedia. Delete as failing
    WP:N amongst other things y'all. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep; seems notable. Moved to

Michael Jordan Steakhouse. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)

Michael Jordan Steaks

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

Page seems like blatant advertising for Michael Jordan's steak business. I don't even think its notable as I never heard about it till today. I recommend this page be deleted and maybe a one line blurb about his steak business be inserted here. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move, the restaurant chain is notable. This can be discussed in context. StarM 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Away (Enrique Iglesias song)

Away (Enrique Iglesias song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased single with little or no significant media coverage. Fails

talk|contribs) 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InsideOut Film

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

Non-notable film -- fails

WP:N ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Bones episodes. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanks in the U.K.

Yanks in the U.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Other Bones episodes lack their own article and I fail to see why this is an exception. This article also is quite poor, lacking information on the UK recepetion of the article (As commented on in the talk page) Computerjoe's talk 22:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this episode outline be deleted? It's not try that other Bones episodes lack their own page - many others have some. If you are concerned about the UK reception, why don't you find it out and add it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanya88 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this episode notable? Computerjoe's talk 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    reliable source coverage in the New Zealand Herald, but perhaps this is not enough to satisfy notability. DHowell (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect meaning delete and redirect so it can't be recreated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does "delete and redirect" prevent recreation? An AFD consensus to redirect (without deletion) would have the same "force" against recreation as an AFD consensus to delete. All deletion does is deny editors access to material which might be able to be used in another article (and the news article I linked to showed that at least some of the information is
      notable). DHowell (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Gai daan jai- article now meets requirements - name change will assist. --VS talk 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaidanchai

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

I'm not saying this is a

talk) 14:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Doing a search on 雞蛋仔 returned these results, which gives this spelling: Gai daan jai which then returned this, while this spelling Gai dan jai, returned this. Now, I'm still not certain that this is a notable subject - the sources are mainly blogs - but this is not a hoax, and it's not a speedy. SilkTork *YES! 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Keep in some form. Whether or not it should be merged, and if so what the target should be, is one for talk-page discussion. Consensus is that this material should be kept in some form/location. StarM 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Middle School shooting

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

This article does not meet the standards of notability. It was a shooting that occurred two and a half years ago at a middle school, and there is not an adequate amount of information needed to be used for this article. The article has no place anywhere here except for the

list of school attacks. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete; fails notability guidelines. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Like the Flowers

I Like the Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. StarM 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vrajlal Sapovadia

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

Non-notable academic, i.e. does not meet

conflict of interest (see edit history). --Edcolins (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • He is so silent that he has to create his one userpage and article in WP and upload his own photopgraph to show in the article. Does he think that WP is same as LinkedIn?--GDibyendu (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All these are indeed good works, but that is not what
    notability is about in WP. Notability is not necessarily a good thing: goor people can be not notable and very bad people can be notable. Too many people seem to think that it is an honor to have their bio in Wikipedia. Well, Adolf Hitler has a bio, too. He's very notable, and at the same time very evil. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails
    WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete: no independent sources which discuss notability of the person. `'Míkka>t 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the download count can be sourced from ssrn but is irrelevant, considering that the papers seem to be merely tutorials, not research--essentially none of them has been published at his point. No citations in GScholar, nothing in scopus. His notability at teaching would need real sources outside the university. DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG comments above. Does not appear to pass any of the criteria of
    WP:PROF based on the information available. SSRN papers are basically self-publications (like preprints in arXiv) and do not really count until the papers have appeared in some peer-reviewed publications. Very little citability of his work in googlescholar, WebOfScience and Scopus, and nothing in googlebooks[67]. The awards mentioned are not sufficiently significant to overcome absence of explicit evidence of impact of his work. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_11&oldid=1081072672"