Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail Archive

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

No assertion of notabiliy. Fails

• Delete. Only source provided is a paper which used the Mail Archive as the source of their research. Incidental coverage is not enough, must be the subject of the article to qualify for notability. Would be prepared to reconsider if it is shown lots of researchers are using this program. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:52, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric relationship marketing

Biometric relationship marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the article passes

• Speedy delete. I know a bit about biometrics and I can't see anything informative in this article. Might not mention a specific business, but blatantly written to promote someone's line of business (the use of "we" gives it away). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ranks in Call of Duty 4

List of Ranks in Call of Duty 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of

• Delete or Redirect - Game cruft, suited for a site like GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Cruftastic. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Description copied over to StrategyWiki:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/Ranks. -- Prod (Talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. And another Wikia is a place more suitable for this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per Zerokitsune.
  talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Do not merge this. Pagrashtak 14:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really no reason for it to exist. Danie Tei (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not relevant to a real-world perspective, worth no more than a sentence in parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:GAMEGUIDE. Can be summarised in two sentences in the main article. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albin Asphaug

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

No

• Delete as probable hoax. Zero Google hits (except for WP article), which is highly unlikely for a "bestselling author", even if only known in Norway.
• Delete as probable hoax, Rrenacak (talk · contribs) has created other probable hoax articles. --Soman (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolutely no reliable sources to establish notability, or provide verifiability (not that there is much of an article to verify) - Whpq (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax. Unjustified removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sören Feldstedt

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

No

• Delete. Not sure if it's because he's Swedish, but no Google results whatsoever. This may be a
  talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, could be a hoax and doesn't establish notability. Could be a misspellt name, though. The family name could have various alternative spellings. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as likely hoax. No sources, and creator's only two other contributions (also new articles about supposedly popular Scandinavian authors, Pia Engelstoft and Albin Asphaug) are similarly unverifiable. Hqb (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources whatsoever. Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax. Unjustified removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Engelstoft

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

No

• Delete as probable hoax. Zero Google hits (except for WP page), zero hits in Danish book search engine. Both are highly unlikely for a 100,000-copies selling author. Hqb (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably hoax, same user has created other article which appears to be hoaxes. --Soman (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence for the existence of this person as there are no sources provided or found in searching -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax. Unjustifed removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this a bit early, no point in piling on. The article will be userfied, I hope the creator will bring it back if reliable sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorseycut

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

Appears to be completely made up -- zero hits in Google for New Yorseycut. I could not, however, think of a speedy delete criterion this would fit under. Maybe an admin bolder than me will? Newsaholic (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I really wish CSD included these silly attempts at publicizing neologisms. —KCinDC (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wow - Zero hits. Clubmarx (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand why this has to be deleted. I have heard this phrase used on a few occasions and I do not find it offensive nor irrelevant (Connecticut clearly is a part of this geographic region). It may not be important, but I find it a neat word. If you are using Google as a source, sure you aren't going to get any hits. Only few people use it.... and who would blog about it? I heard the word yesterday, I thought it would not be a harmful thing to write about. Interesting, that's all. And you all don't need to be so rude about it. -CTcitizen

• If only a few people use it, then it has no reason to be on Wikipedia (see
  WP:NOTABLE). —KCinDC (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete As someone who lives in the NY-NJ-CT area, this is the very first time I ever heard of the area called that.
  talk) 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete sorry, but
  Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. The creator of this article should look to post this there instead of here if it's a "local slang term" or something similar. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails the linkfarmspam test, ie: a whois shows that no one has even bothered to register NewYorseycut.com as a link farm, no less a legit site. Even mispellings get more respect than that.
  TALK) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete as non-notable neologism.
  talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I apologize in advance to CTcitizen, who created this article in good faith. Bear in mind that we see a lot of new articles created by persons who are trying to be funny, and that if one has never read or heard "New Yorseycut", it sounds like someone making a joke. From what I gather, part of why you liked the description was that you had never heard it described that way before. In both cases, the reason for your positive reaction and our negative reaction is the same. My personal favorite portmanteau was "Brimaquonx" to describe New York City, something that Mario Pei repeated in his book The Story of English. The reason for a deletion is that for a topic to get a "page" of its own, it has to pass a test of notability, which is usually defined in terms of coverage by reliable and verifiable sources that can be cited in order to respond to the skeptical reader. Thus, if the New Yorker used the term on multiple occasions, or it was being heard on WPIX when they're talking about the weather, that would be notable. If it's any consolation, there are seven more people than there were yesterday who have seen the word "New Yorseycut". Please don't let the introduction to AfD turn you away from contributing to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a single source can support this formation in Google or Google News / Archive. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ialdabaoth/Valefor

Ialdabaoth/Valefor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon article does not establish

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - entirely in-universe, thus not within our
  WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías - I realize that's also an ongoing AfD but it covers essentially the same content and it's 4-0 atm for not having articles. Nifboy (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  subpage. B.Wind (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentera

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

This fictional weapon does not establish

• Delete per nom. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another fictional something (a robot in this case) that has no notability outside the show. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Masamage ♫ 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Horror

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

Contested PROD. Completely unreferenced. Not even listed on the IMDb. Google search for "Celebrity Horror film" results in this article as only relevant hit. Violates

• Delete per
  TALK) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not a shred of supporting evidence, or other explanation for de-PRODding given.
  WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. Hqb (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as
  HOAX. How can the even announce a running time? Searches with "Celebrity Horror" and production r star's names give only the WIKI article. No director. No writer. Nothing. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Speedy this hoax and remove all links from other articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment, after a thorough search, I have tagged the article for a G3 speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, if one checks the author's history, you can see not only a number of insertions of this film's name in the various star's articles, but her own aelf-authored biography. Not good. Not good at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alan Tabone

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

This article was up for prod. The prod tag was removed, perhaps spuriously, and then put back. Another Wikipedian is arguing that this is unfair and seems to think that Wikipedia is anti-Maltese. I have no opinion on deletion of this article except to say that I don't think that is is an obvious no-brainer and I thought it deserved a proper AfD discussion, if only to prove that we are being fair. DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not a football expert, but if this guy played on the national team, doesn't that meet part of
  WP:ATHLETE? What the article needs, if it's going to be saved, is some reliable sources that confirm this. If they aren't forthcoming, then I lean to delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Is this a joke? He plays in the top pro league in Malta,[5], on a team that is playing in the
  WP:ATHLETE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Clarityfiend.
  talk) 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has only played for the national team at youth level, and the Maltese league is nowhere near the "fully professional" standard demanded by
  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: While I can see sense in your comments about the leagues, I can't agree about the national newspapers. Some countries are small but their national newspapers are still their national newspapers. We don't want to set a standard where we assume that the entire country is not notable and that its people are only notable by their coverage in foreign media. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is something I've been mulling over, as well. I live in SoCal's Antelope Valley (Palmdale/Lancaster), which has roughly the same population as the country of Malta. If we're not going to be Americanistic (or fill-in-the-blank if you're from a country that has more than a few million residents), we need to be sensitive to the fact that notability can be somewhat flexible...a sports team or an individual player from the Antelope Valley wouldn't be considered notable if only mentioned in our local paper, because it's measured in relation to the US as a whole. But in a country of that size, though the national media may not be any "bigger" than our local media, it should have more weight in such determinations. I don't believe that Wikipedia is "anti-Maltese" as the rather angry editor accused it of being, but I do feel that we can be insensitive to situations like this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for UEFA Cup (whether qualifying round or "competition proper" does not matter to me - it's the same competition) appearances, and the sources found by User:Clarityfiend. General notability guidelines trump WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: OK. I didn't have an opinion when I started the AfD, and I still know less than nothing about football, but I am now leaning towards keep based on the media coverage found by Clarityfiend. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clarityfiend. GiantSnowman 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on sources found by Clarityfiend. Edward321 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very clearly fails
  WP:BIO; the two news articles make mention of his name during match reports and say nothing about him, whilst the other one is from his club, and is therefore not an independent source. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As Number 57 pointed out, the Maltese league is not fully professional and simply playing in the UEFA Cup doesn't confer natablity - if it did, does that mean we can look forward to a flood of articles from the Welsh non-league scene?! The sources provided above don't really satisfy WP:N requirements - a blog (just a brief mention in the team lineup), the club website, and a handful of brief mentions in match reports.
  (rawr!) 09:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The second biggest club competition in Europe doesn't confer notability, yet an appearance in the Johnstones Paint Trophy or League Two would? - fchd (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if both teams were fully pro, as mentioned at

(rawr!) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:FOOTYN is a personal essay, not adopted as either guideline or policy (and in my opinion has been totally discredited). This sort of AfD proves it. - fchd (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmmm. Not quite sure how this AfD has discredited WP:FOOTYN, but as it says, you're free to use or ignore it as you wish. As far as this AfD goes, my opinion stays the same; this guy fails all three of the usual notability criteria (WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN).

(rawr!) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete not professional, not yet appeared for senior Malta side. I don't buy the argument that a middle size fish in a small pond is 'more notable'. Not being anti Malta (or indeed anywhere else - I live in a small pond too) but in the footballing world a player makes the grade or he doesn't. To make the grade in Malta that means going abroad to play fully pro, or making the national side - 1 in x00,000 makes it. Same in any place big or small, 1 in x00,000 makes it. In Oz, with 20m people, you can play local professional league, go abroad to play pro or make national side, only 1 in x00,000 makes it. You don't inherit more notability because you come from a small place. A player in top Cook Island team gets more local press coverage than 2nd div England, but that is only because the paper has nothing else to write about, not because the player is more notable. UEFA cup appearance? if they get beyond qualifying rounds maybe, but no more notable than non-league FA cup matches or NZ Chatham cup qualifying matches before that.--ClubOranjeTalk 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maltese League is not fully professional, and playing the UEFA Cup qualifiers is way different than taking part in the full competition - even San Marino and Andorra teams compete in the qualifiers, and their players easily fail
  WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Colt (Supernatural)

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

)

A fictional weapon. All real world information is located in Supernatural (TV series). The rest is original research and part of thew plot. It seems to have no notability outside the show. The previous Afds, a year ago ended with no consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to be mostly
  reliable source. Redir to parent article if necessary. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - There are definitely story-internal facts that should, IMO, by

original research, that is an orthogonal issue and should IMO be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some details, such as Kripke's thoughts on an alternate history spinoff that features the Colt, can be cited. Some, such as what kind of entities the gun is actually deadly to, are speculative and should be removed. Others, such as what kind of real historical Colt the one in this article is based on and where the inscription comes from, may just need sourcing (a matter of time and effort). Banazir (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - mainly unneeded information and extensive summary of the plots involving the gun. Can easily be shortened into the subsection on the main page. Ophois (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Unneeded" is a matter of personal opinion, whereas some of the details are clearly plot summary and fail notability criteria. I would argue that most of that material should be moved to the Supernatural wiki or just removed from this article itself, but that it should exist despite the

alternative history tie-in (and thus related to story-external topics such as series creator Eric Kripke's mention of a possible alternative history spin-off in an interview). As for how easily it can be shortened "into" the page for the show, I agree that it is easy to cut or subsume plot summary info, but I would like to propose that, as a compromise, we first fork all of the "artifacts" on the main page into one artifact page, and then merge this page for the Colt into it. Banazir (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - As noted in the
  WP:CYF. The object has some historical fiction signifcance and, as documented in the cited references, is notable (or at least significant) in establishing a mythology for the series. Certainly it has stayed integral as a genre-defining component of the show, not merely as a plot device. I would suggest, though, that we consider merging this into an artifacts page, as there are several artifacts collected on Supernatural_(TV_series) already. Banazir (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The "Critical Reception" paragraph can be added to the main page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 76.71.117.31 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this anonymous IP has no other edit than this "vote". Afd is not a voting procedure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's far from perfect, but it is showing signs of "getting there". A couple of references, and critical reception. As I say, it's not great, but from what I see it has the potential to be OK. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does everyone agree that the sections "The Bullets" and "the use of the weapon" should not be in Wikipedia? It's just trivia and original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Story-internal, definitely. Trivia, possibly. But how is it original research? It is legitimate to refer to the episode itself, and to cite it as a source, when documenting objective, quantifiable observations. For example, it would not constitute original research to simply state that in the

third U.S. presidential debate of 2008, Senator Obama wore a red tie and Senator McCain wore a blue tie; the videorecording suffices as a reliable source and no third-party report is needed. Counting the number of times a weapon has been used, when it was introduced within the story as a limited-use artifact, is similar. I gather your concern is that the list is a plot detail of no interest beyond the show, and I agree. Details of this kind should be transwikied to (say) the Super-Wiki. I will do this in the next few days. Banazir (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - The "reception" is extremely trivial and the rest is just unnecessary. Merge it if the fictional content is important to the series and not already included in the main article. TTN (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree that the Critical Reception section is "extremely trivial", because it's still a work in progress. Some work needs to be done to meet reliable sourcing standards per

WP:RS, but in this case I think it's preferable to 1) move what belongs in the wiki for the show (fictional content), b) absorb what belongs in the plot summary for the show (or the season summaries), and c) add relevant material concerning the story-external historical fiction aspects. Regarding (2), I've proposed forking a general "artifacts" page, as there are is at least one (Ruby's knife) of comparable importance to the Colt story-internally, and at least one of compararable real-world significance (Dean's Impala). Banazir (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - trivial coverage of a fictional object with no real world notability outside the context of the TV series it appears in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles cited in the Critical Reception section, particularly "On TV: Mythologies aren't made quickly" from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, establish real-world notability as an example of historical fiction. Please note the new article (Kripke interview regarding the historical fiction spinoff idea) that I cited in this discussion above, but have not yet linked. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A fictional weapon with no notability. -- nips (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As mentioned above, the Seattle P-I review that discusses various story mythoi in present-day TV shows cites The Colt as a real history tie-in for Supernatural. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's a completely trivial mention - a single line with no context or expansion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Contrary to the delete votes above, this article displays noteability through independent sources. Thus, claims of it being trivial are wrong. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a trivial mention in a article that provides a summary of the series and mentions the weapon in passing, providing absolutely no insight into it's significant or well anything... The second is a blog review about the first episode where the weapon turns up. So just more descriptive summary. Those references show that the show has notability, they do not show that the weapon has notability outside the context of the show. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Contrary to the keep vote above, this article does not display notability through independent sources. There are two: one mentions the pistol only extremely briefly in passing, and the other is just a summary of the episode, not the pistol itself. Thus, the subject of the article lack significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and therefore fails our notability guideline. seresin ( ¡? )  22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Anything sourced should be in the series article, but the sources are all trivial mentions of the weapon, not enough to show independant notability.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Myrtle Avenue (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

None notable street, one of many venues used for plane spotters - wikipedia is not a guide for plane spotting locations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know it personally. However, I de-prodded the article because the linked BBC news story refers to it twice as 'the "Myrtle Avenue spot"', which seemed to confer notability. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge anything that isn't simply an aircraft spotting guide in
  London Heathrow Airport. It's a spot where someone parks their car and takes pictures of planes. I cannot see that meriting its own article. MvjsTalking 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This location is obviously notable as the BBC citation attests. It is not an arbitrary place but is the best place to view aircraft at Heathrow, which is the busiest international airport in the world. This makes the spot foremost in its field. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the plane spotting location is a field at the end of this cul-de-sac road no mention in the article that the road itself is notable. And just to note it is not the foremost spotting location as it can only be used when one of the four runway approaches is in use. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The BBC call it the "Myrtle Avenue spot" so we might change the name of the article. This is a marginal issue though, as is the exact ranking of the spot. The essential point is that the location is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is for an article about a road that fails to claim that the road is notable or even mention anything about the road other than it used to access a field for plane spotting (not sure one mention on the BBC makes it notable). MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The article sows the seeds of it's own deletion : "a street which is 'famous amongst aircraft enthusiasts'". I'm not convinced that notability within a relatively small group of people translates into encyclopedic notability (if it did, anything with a fan base would be an automatic keep). I also suspect that if you canvassed even a group of Londoners, not one non-spotter would know of this street (except for cabbies, i guess) MadScot (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not here to document common knowledge and so Wikipedia contains large numbers of topics which are only known to a few people. Per
  WP:N, notability is distinct from "fame", "importance" or "popularity". Though, in this case, we may be sure that this place is known to the airport authorities, the police, the BBC and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge and redirect to
  GFDL. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge or delete Merge targets might be a new section in Heathrow Airport or Aircraft spotting locations in the UK. Since the latter does not exist (unless there is a similar article already), this would be in fact a rename. The content would then be reduced to a single paragraph, allowing for the best locations for other airports to be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MadScot.
  talk) 08:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aktu Taktu

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

Non-notable small fast food chain in Iceland. Added a notability notice a while ago, but nothing happened. Kickstart70-T-C 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability asserted, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-cited. Article has been at stub status for two years. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per teh hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies

Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content lacks coverage in reliable sources. The only sources I found so far are mirror sites. I had previously nominated this article for deletion due to its title. If there are any sources, show me. But I doubt any sources will be mentioned.

Also nominating these for the fact that reliable sources are not present:

• Red Ranger
• Blue Ranger
• Green Ranger
• Yellow Ranger
• Pink Ranger
• Black Ranger
• White Ranger

While the content is notable, the content is not verifiable. If these articles get deleted, I request that someone make these articles redirects to Power Rangers. I recommend that before you voice your opinion here, you read the previous nomination first. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is getting ridiculous, Mythdon. You don't send articles to AFD because there is something wrong with the content that can clearly be fixed. You send them to AFD if you cannot find any sources. There is nothing in these articles that aren't mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia where there are reliable sources. This batch AFD does not work in this case. And I am frankly getting tired of your seeking process for the sake of process.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Nothing here is effectively different from the previous nomination. Way too much info, with sourcing, for deletion to be the best course; moreover, it seemed reasonable in the PRIOR nomination to rename or redirect the article -- it is, after all, a subarticle that illuminates the larger project. As for the other articles on each of the "main" Power Rangers, they're clearly notable, and in something with as many television series, comics, online media, toys, etc. etc. etc. there are two very reliable sources: the primary source (which, as far as I can tell, could be found by someone with the time and desire to do it, if not already sufficiently done), and likely a good number of tvguide or other television media articles from third party sources out there in the intertubes. Maybe I'm wrong... but it seems like a lot of painstaking effort would needlessly go down the drain on these, if they're deleted. My .02. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no opinion about the "other rangers and ranger-like allies", but I'd be surprised if one couldn't scrounge up some good out-of-universe info on each member of the core group. There are several analytical works that discuss the Power Rangers: for example, this and this.

Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, correct me if I'm wrong here.... but, Mythdon, shouldn't you have attempted to notify the original author of this article by putting a notice in his/her talk page? I know that for the main AfD article and the Red Ranger one, you seem to have neglected to do so... maybe it just slipped your mind? or you're in the middle of it as I type this right now?..... Cheers.JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - The article states that this is an "unofficial designation". However, the other named articles are absolutely notable subjects. These characters are commonly parodied and satired and would qualify as notable. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here's the deal: Mythdon is just looking for attention. Yes, I did just go there. Instead of nominating the article for deletion, perhaps he should put in that notice that says "This article needs additional references for citation." That would point out that there is a lot of unverified (but not necessarily unverifiable) information. You know what, I think Mythdon is just on a mission to have every single Power Rangers article except the most basic ones (like the ones for the series and the Power Rangers core article) deleted simply because he doesn't like the Power Rangers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i see nothing to indicate that it is not a good faith nomination. People can have a variety of views on articles such as this. DGG (talk) 01

37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Ryulong. As Zagalejo shows, sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main article as it passed AFD only a few months ago and I see no reason to reverse the decision. It's no different than a "list of minor characters" article which has been established by precedent as being acceptable for Wikipedia. Keep the individual articles, too, as these are the main characters in a massive international entertainment franchise spanning multiple television series and films. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no evidence that the characters in this article/list are notable, either jointly or individually, and its content, drawn from primary sources, is a clear breach of
  WP:SYNTHESIS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The characters in all 8 articles are notable, as these are lists of characters that are extensions of other articles. The fact that the only sources currently used as references should be not be a reason for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Transformational Magic: Some Japanese superheroes and monsters" (found by Zagalejo in The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture) devotes a whole section to these (stock) characters and their significance.--Nohansen (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of worlds

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

Non-notable freeware game.

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fairly torn on this one. The article is one day old. Normally I would suggest giving the editor some time to refine the article, but the breadth of the edits implies copying text verbatim from other materials. It is doubtful that other editors would be interested in maintaining such a discordant volume of information. Hence the recommendation to delete. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reviews are user generated, not editorial. It may be notable next year. Then again, it might not. Right now, it is just not.
  TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Hit it on the head with the lack of
  MuZemike (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the reviews are neither significant or reliable. If PC Powerplay give it good coverage in Dec/Jan and it receives substantial coverage in other publications, then it will pass the notability threshold, but not until then. As an aside, I recognize that chipset - is this not just an RPG Maker-made game? Marasmusine (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the tools used to create a game, it's whether or not it passes notability which is the sticking point. RPG Maker games can and do gain enough coverage to become notable, ditto Flash games. Someoneanother 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if it is featured in a magazine there is no guarantee it's going to be covered in enough depth to make the source usable, a mag I read regularly covers 6 or 9 mainstream games on a single page, each of which is nothing more than a couple of lines and a near-meaningless percentage score. The only other thing I can see are some user reviews which
  notability. Someoneanother 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Can someone tell me why this is unnotable? I would say being downloaded as many times as it has been is notable. Give it a chance. Play it, have some fun! I just want to acknowledge that I have made my contribution to gaming. I'm not trying to promote it or advertise it, I'm just trying to assert it's existence. How else could I show this? What exactly would I need to do to keep this article online? Would you like a screenshot of the interview I had to do for PC Powerplay? (which I did online) As for the first objection, relating to me "copying material from other sources", I didn't. I was typing and saving the page as I went along. They were not meant to be seperate edits. Please consider keeping this. I have seen worse and more obscure games featured on wikipedia. So what if it is an RPG Maker game? I have the perception that someone has something against RPG Maker games. (RPG Maker DOES utilize Ruby, by the way.) It's the most popular RPG Maker game this year, and is the final RPG Maker 2003 game to win a MISAOS award. Is any of this relevant? Dark Gaia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—

few or no other edits

outside this topic.

• I've nothing against RPG-Maker made games, I was just surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the article, especially when the screenshot showed an unmodified stock chipset. I apologize, as it wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion.

  WP:N should answer your question. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Please take the time to read the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have, including
  MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wishes to use some of this content to write an article on Drummond, please feel free to contact me - however this article is mainly about the observatory, which consensus appears to hold as non-notable.

Possum Observatory

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

Fails notability to the subject. Prod was removed by a blocked anonymous IP. Very few Google hits and orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7.
  TALK) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Non-notable vanity article. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Per LeilaniLad, appears to be a vanity article which in no way asserts notability. MvjsTalking 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, mentioned on MSNBC, with similiar mentions relating to this discovery on ZDNet, iTWire amongst others. Published in Southern Stars. Listed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics. Work appears in Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, All Sky Automated Survey. Astronomer has confirmed three comet discoveries according to the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand. Appears article creator made stubs for many New Zealand observatories. XLerate (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are good arguments for having an article on John Drummond, not on his observatory. Such an article could mention the observatory of course. dramatic (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - have a look at the website, it's just a setup in his backyard. Very nice but doesn't qualify for an article. This site shows some of the astronomy that I am doing at my personal observatory - Possum Observatory - in New Zealand. . Note the word personal. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, backyard, have little direct bearing on notablity, could even help it - consider Richard Pearse and Burt Munro for example. A purpose-built rotating shed could be unique to backyards of this country, together with news mentions helping comet discoveries, online published work, IAU code, warrants keeping the article in my opinion. XLerate (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from various magazines I've read such setups are common (as in half a dozen vendors advertising them every month in Sky and Telescope). Perhaps the man himself is notable but that doesn't mean the observatory is. The articles for Richard Pearse and Burt Munro are for the people, not their shed. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rewrite as part of an article on Drummond. The fact that published astronomical results are sourced from the setup indicates notability. If consensus deems it doesn't warrant a standalone article, there is no reason to delete the information (which is properly sourced). --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though borderline. Many amateur observatories are doing scientifically valuable work nowadays, and a good-quality 16" telescope with electronic imaging is capable of contributing useful data. Much depends on a systematic observing program, how the data are published and archived, etc. The extreme southeast location is an asset. Wwheaton (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and in my opinion not at all borderline. The amateur astronomer involved may notable, for discovery of Comet Lovejoy -- amateurs in natural sciences can do notable work. The name they choose to give to the place they work in is almost always not, unless it gets significant presscoverage independent of them, which i think would be close to impossible. DGG (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons given by XLerate. Let's given some time to expand the article with the references noted, and possibly revisit the deletion at a later time. --mikeu ^talk 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move content to an article on Drummond. I can't see that this particular shed is documented as notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to John Drummond (astronomer), which surprisingly does not exist, and expand. This will make more sense than to have a stub article about observatory. Possum Observatory will continue to exist as a redirect. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per above. A 16" scope isn't particularly notable; I could probably fit one in the back of a pickup.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - to Terry Lovejoy whom used the observatory to discover the C/2007 E2 (Lovejoy) comet, and the closest actual link to any form of Notability. A redirect should remain here though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The above remark is incorrect as Lovejoy did not use this observatory. Spacepotato (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is actually the case, then I would have to correct myself to Delete, as there would be no claim to notability for this particular observatory then. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sanchez

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

Prod with concern "

• Keep per my expansion with several reliable citations. Icewedge (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• change to keep Good rescue. I added "best selling" to the intro, so it would at least claim notability up front. Good finds, too, as those aren't obvious sources.
  TALK) 20:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Icewesdge's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. References above established notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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