Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Paris Hilton#2008 parody Presidential campaign. We have consensus that this does not need its own article, but we don't agree on how much, if anything, should be merged. That will have to be decided through the editorial process. Sandstein 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad

)

United States presidential election, 2008. -- Suntag ☼ 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - covered adequately in the Paris Hilton article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - garnered media attention, but covered in the parent article and per
WP:NOT#NEWS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom inappropriate POV fork. JBsupreme (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yesterday's news, and an article that never should have been written in the first place. Skittles, anyone? Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new to the main Paris Hilton article. 23skidoo (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for goodness sake, and ignore all the comments based on IDONTLIKEIT or that do not actually look at how the matter is covered by the sources. The article easily meets all the notability criteria - thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of news stories in every major outlet. So this is a matter of trying to defeat notability of an article that meets the formal criteria. The arguments I see are NOT#NEWS, Recentivism, and POV. Starting with the first two the coverage of the matter continues daily with no sign of abating in the past two months - perhaps it is expanding. Some random examples in a few seconds of googling.[1][2][3][4] Any claim that it is just a flash in the pan is
Internet Memes and the like. Whether you like her or not, Hilton is a public personality and an actress. The video is more than an aspect of her life, it is is a work in which she happens to act. Although Hilton may star in the video, but she did not make it, she did not write it, she did not film it, and she did not produce it. Much of the coverage goes to the people who actually did make the view, for example director Adam McKay. There are also aspects of cultural events, of the election, and of McCain's image. It would be unusual to merge an actor's appearances in works with their BIO article. Merging it into any parent article is arbitrary and makes it inaccessible and hard to navigate from the other subjects. Like most pieces of creative content it represents the intersection of many people's efforts. Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ugh! It is getting worse. Make it stop![5] Since Hilton is running with this as a "fake president" campaign it might best be merged or expanded into an article about the overall joke candidacy (we have precedents for such articles, e.g.

Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008). Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

How is a spoof video an element of biography? Doesn't it deal more directly with media? (Question not rhetorical. Am really curious regarding the reasoning behind the designation. Thx) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, pending reasonable explanation of the above question by more experienced RfD hands than mine, I !vote not "~~Delete~~" but "Merge" - Since there would appear to be more than enough not-strictly biographical material concerning this fill out an article about this notable media subject. Yet Merged-to article should accomodate coverage of Hilton's subsequent political video, the fact of Hilton-Rianna campaign merchandise being sold, etc. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question for the nominator or JBsupreme — why is this a POV fork? From what was it forked and to deal with what POV? seresin ( ¡? ) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also interested in the answer to this question.--Anon 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would imagine the fork is from Paris Hilton (I don't buy the argument that someone looking for this article is not going to start at Paris Hilton), and I would imagine the POV is that this 'independant work' is notable as an independant work. Paris is clearly the reason the work became notable. It is worth noting that even though his name came up in this very debate to support the idea of an independant work, Adam McKay's article has zero mention of this notable work he directed at this time. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator seems to be suggesting a merge rather than a delete. Merge proposals can be discussed on talk pages rather than here. "This content can be covered elsewhere" is not a valid reason to delete a page, I think it is a very valid application of the official guideline
WP:SUMMARIZE.--Anon 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- I proposed a merge on 30 August 2008. It isn't exactly being discussed right now. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree totally with the assessment that it's a POV fork, so that argument is disregarded. Looking at the article, while it might be better suited there in the Paris Hilton article, merging all relevant information there would create a disproportionately large section in the article, despite the fact that it's not a huge part of Paris Hilton's life, and so it would be inappropriate to merge it there. Looking at
United States presidential election, 2008, I find myself thinking a section, (or even an article) about all the campaign drama, watercooler talk, and buzzwords from the campaign (things like Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin's clothes, Ayers, the article in question etc.) would add a lot to the article. But that's not what we're talking about. So my suggestion for the article is, ideally, for the article/section I suggested above to be created, and this article merged there. Barring that, the result of this AfD should be 'keep', due to the news coverage, explicitly without a mandate for merging, but not precluding a merge should editorial consensus result in such a decision. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- - You want to create Trivia of the United States presidential election, 2008? The fake presidential campaign section in Hilton's bio already covers this article and more besides. The only thing I can see being argued to be kept here is press and politician's commments on Paris's proposed energy policy compromise. Whatever way you cut that, even though it is sourced, that is not worthy of an article, and that is what needs to be merged into more relevant presidential articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this proposal makes sense.--Anon 09:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - to Paris Hilton#2008 parody Presidential campaign. It's already covered there pretty well and any new info and sources could be moved over there without, in my opinion, making the Paris Hilton article too long. Raven1977 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles into
Paris Hilton energy plan. Notable, but marginally so by themselves. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Paris Hilton energy plan is a redirect here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Perhaps article should be merged with Funny or Die. (Hilton's video "Paris for President" released just today (October 30) IMO is sort of dreck.)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) On 2nd thought, merge this article, its Funny or Die sequel and a mention of the new "Paris for President" music video to a new article named Paris for President?

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 15:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value to
List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, as suggested by the nom. This article is a rather pointless POV fork that the project is better off without. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete then add two sentences on this to the paris hilton page.
talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:07, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Shippuuden: Narutimate Accel 3

Bring this to afd due to

WP:Crystal. Nothing is found via search engine to confirm the existence of this game. « ₣M₣ »

23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletions. « ₣M₣ »
23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete It can be recreated when adequate infomation and sources become available. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder (prod removed without explanation). There is no evidence in
reliable sources that shows this game is in development, much less exists. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 08:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't exist. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL, article can be recreated if/when some more solid information surfaces. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:46, 31 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) 06:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Construtora Castelo Branco

Non notable company. No

WP:COI (created by Mattheus branco (talk · contribs · count)). See also: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Construtora Castelo Branco. Tosqueira (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotion. Add third party reliable sources or destroy. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:CORP - The articles has no sources. EconomistBR 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotional. The only things that give me pause is the "Prizes and Awards" section, but the award titles are so generic that it's impossible to tell from context how important they are. Given the lack of third-party sources, I'm leaning towards them being minor awards that do not confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 31 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 : The consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion, so I am withdrawing the nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social software in education

)

Reads like an

proposed deletion challenged by article's creator on article's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, weakly, as original research, per nomination. A potential article on the subject might be written, and the author of this piece might be well placed to do it; but this text is not an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Smerdis. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article is well-sourced, and the author clearly knows his stuff. I agree with Smerdis, though, that it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. But I'm going to
WP:SS, he can modify the article so that it sounds more encyclopedic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike notes the following on my talk page:

I don't think you have come to the right place, as

original research is outside the project's scope. Since you have challenged the article's deletion, I am going to nominate it for a full debate at Social software in education. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But I ask what if an article is a guide to original research, and particularly what that research has to say on a practical level? In the case of the article concerned, an extraction of original research and how it applies to the field of educational technology. This is a central question for me because, as funded work, the Association for Learning Technology has constructed a series of nine guides on what research has to say for educational practice, and seeks to disseminate these via various media, Wikipedia included.

By way of analogy, what if I researched, say, Chile from original sources, and then wrote an article on the country and its geography? Not that different to researching educational practice using social software from original sources (themselves research papers) and then wrote an article about educational practice using social software informed by those resources?

I am going to suspend editing on this first article until I hear back as to if Wikipedia is a suitable home for these guides. For this time there may be less than encyclopedic language int he contribution. A note by email to mark.van.harmelen -at- alt.ac.uk would be handy too please once the community decides what to do. Markvanharmelen (talk)

Comment: I think the main problem here is that you write too well. Wikipedia has a lot of good writers, to be sure, but the trick (a talent in itself) is for them to restrain their talent when writing encyclopedic articles. For example, you begin with an excellent rhetorical hook: "When did software become social? One could argue that..." But encyclopedic material is a bit dryer than that. Just state the facts (organize them, of course, but
manual of style in mind, and source the facts as often as you can. Whenever you feel like you're getting really involved, whenever you feel like you're achieving your creative potential, whenever you feel like it's really you doing the writing...stop, because you may be approaching things too originally for an encyclopedia. You are correct that "an article is a guide to original research," but the article can't be original research--that is, the language of the "guide" must be generic enough that your "voice" as a writer doesn't really show through. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A well-written, well-sourced article. But please be aware of
talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR, but the article is in fact different from our standard. It's too formal, and it's referenced in too much detail. This is an unsophisticated place for publication. I'm not saying to dumb it down exactly, but... DGG (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note from person posting Hopefully the balance is moving towards keep. I am not the author, but merely the poster, and the initial editor of this contribution. In fact, I was ready to edit this contribution into something more encyclopedic when Mike started the deletion-decision process on this page, so I've held off doing any edits. I suggest that I continue this process within some kind of good faith arrangement that I will do so. Is that OK? And I'll also read the guidance material that you suggest here. Thanks, Markvanharmelen (talk) 11:04, 28 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 keep. Procedural keep. Article is linked from the main page. Please seek its removal from the main page first, then resubmit . Synergy 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phasmophobia

)

While there is such thing as "fear of ghosts", the word "phasmophobia" is nothing but a word coinage: there are no valid references to the disease (

original research produced by arbitrarily combining descriptions from books dealing with superstitions and texts which describe generic specific phobias. Once again, the article does not produce references for actual clinical cases of "phasmophobia". Mukadderat (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. If someone is going to "improve" the article by adding references to various psychology webistes which promise you to heal from phasmophobia for three easy payments of $995, please read the article
-phobia, about various phobia lists. Mukadderat (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Arguably more notable than others on
talk) 23:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
All these googole book hist are dicdefs with zero content beyond it. `'Míkka >t 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atmoz. Also, things like this and this could be added as
WP:RS's even though they mention "fear of ghosts" rather than the technical term. Its presence on medical sites (e.g., [6] and [7]) is also promising. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: By the way, if "phasmophobia" seems too obscure a word, then the article could simply be renamed to "Fear of ghosts." I see no reason to delete the material. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All reputable info about "Fear of ghosts" may be merged into "ghost article, where it is already discussed on a broader level. `'Míkka >t 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
content spammers and cannot be reliable sources, since there is no reliable source for their texts are presented. `'Míkka >t 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Refute: Google does not determine notability, nor are their any 'content spamming' websites referenced in the article. Additionally, "Exploring Psychology" (referenced in the article) does specifically mention how hypnosis contributes to phenomena like the fear of ghosts. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To mikkalai: Which would be why you deleted the article three times against policy and process because in your point-of-view specific phobia are "garbage"? ~
  User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep: per
Atmoz and Cosmic Latte, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/Transwiki to wiktionary. No evidence it is a real disease, just a word. People fear of many weird things: cemeteries, pumpkinheads, Jack the Ripper, black cats, etc. These are superstitions, not diseases. Timurite (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refute: You are correct, there is no evidence that phasmophobia is a real disease - mainly because it's not - phasmophobia is an anxiety disorder. And there is clear evidence that phasmophobia is not a superstition (see article references). αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anxiety disorder is a psychiatric disease. `'Míkka>t 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it lacks a known organic cause, it is more appropriately referred to as a "disorder" than a "disease." There is a reason why
      mental illness redirect to mental disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Keep per cosmic latte. A fear of ghosts in notable, despite most sources not using the technical term. This AFD is the result of the POV of a specific few editors who believe that all specific phobia are "garabage" and one has even abused their administrator powers to push that view. ~
User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep well written, sourced, clearly notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well written original research, the cited sources do not describe phasmophobia beyond dicdef. `'Míkka>t 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you know this because you have each cited source and checked? Anything I wrote in the article is cited from books I found in my local library. ~
    User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - It sounds like
      Ameliorate! has taken time to do detailed research on the phobia. Has anyone else researched library books yet? Until you too go to the library to research the phobia, you are not qualified to refute Ameliorate on the article's notability. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 01:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    - I challenge you to cite the books from your library which describe specifically phasmophobia disorder, not fear of ghosts or phobias in general. `'Míkka >t 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. It might be possible to write a good article on the topic, but this ain't it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Would you mind indicating what in the article is original research? ~

User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Well sourced, notable, and the deletes smell of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 15:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep changed my mind its good, I looked through it again and it seems fine, I must of misread it the first time, hunger impairs judgement. --Zaharous (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Properly conducted entry, construction at high quality. Cross links with appropriate subject matter. Retain the article, for it is recommended to help the user community both directly with the entry, but also with its extensive cross-links to useful topics. Plus the categorization points of interest help the reader very well.--[[User:Agencius|Content is a plus and agnostic viewpoints stated are not a part of this,
triskadekaphobia, fear for the number 13]] ^{or like phobias reality is perception of the individual based.} 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Please notice that triskaidekaphobia is defined as an irrational fear and supersitiion, not as a specific phobia, and as such it is well referenced. Laudak (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete
original synthesis to create a new original research article about a dubious specific phobia basing on texts about ghosts and phobias. Laudak (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope, wrong. The sources are related to a fear of ghosts, or phasmophobia ie. they specifically mention and discuss it directly. ~

User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into a "fear of ghosts" section in
ghosts, and trim down to the ghost-phobia-specific material (i.e. without giving a "ghost" paraphrase to a bunch of generic sources on specific phobias). --Delirium (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You realise that all the sources SPECIFICALLY mention the term "Phasmophobia" or "fear of ghosts"? Right? Among others of course, but it is in there. ~

User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please review the

WP:SYNTH policy, then I will start explaining what is wrong with your article in detail, if you are interested. Laudak (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Per Atmoz. —
neuro^(talk) 18:55, 31 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. El on ka 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Kock

Seems to fail

MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I am no longer maintaining this article. Still, my suggestion is to keep. None of the citation sources are to self-publications; they are media outlets, including prestigious ones (e.g., New York Times), and refereed journals. A Google search for “ned kock” (with quotes) returned 47,300 hits. The two books now listed in the article are with prestigious publishers – Springer and Sage. Amazon lists 13 books authored by Ned Kock, one of which is an encyclopedia. Kock is the editor-in-chief of an established journal, and is the author of 66 refereed journal articles (plus a number of invited articles in journals, book chapters, and proceedings papers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senortypant (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has self identified as the article subject. The New York Times mention is trivial (a background quote in an article about email), not an article about Professor Kock. -

MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This self-identification point is a little off-topic, in my opinion, and incorrect. A picture can be owned by someone other than the subject of the picture. The point about the NY Times article is a valid one though, but that is not the only source - Senortypant —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

weak keep. A google news search shows some good sources. It doesn't seem to be much, mainly based on press releases, but significant coverage altogether. The possible
WP:COI issues are not grounds for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The references in the article show notability.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #8 (editor-in-chief); established journal, broadly indexed, and carried full-text by ABI/INFORM. Eric Yurken (talk) 02:35, 29 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; already gone (NAC)

(talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Bear Witch

Delete - Vague and unsourced rumour about something scary that might have happened in Haviland, Kansas in 1806. Can't find any sources or facts about it. ~~SIS~~ 22:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, it's gone already. ~~SIS~~ 22:09, 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 Delete. --Tone 11:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton McClure

Subject of this article fails to meet

WP:BIO. The claims of notability include being mentioned in a book, and being friends of musician. The cited references don't really seem to be independent of the subject or don't seem to be about the subject. Peacock (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per the above nomination. Worse, it appears that the claim of being mentioned in a book applies to the subject's father, not the subject himself. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non notable fails
wp:bio. BigDunc^Talk 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I do know this person. Clayton McClure is definitely a friend of the band Casting Crowns, and has actually sung with them often (albeit, mostly in smaller settings than their normal concerts). The article may need different sources, but don't punish Clayton McClure for the author's poor citation skills. -Azkadel

- Don't take this discussion as a slight against the guy, or the editor who created the article. The thing is. being a friend of someone famous doesn't automatically make someone notable for an article on wikipedia. Look at this
  Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria. As it is, i vote delete as well.--Celtus (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Oh, I wasn't trying to say that anyone was insulting either the guy or the author. I was simply stating that many people know this man, I think he deserves an article. The author of the article simply didn't do a good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azkadel (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of Those Days - EP

Contested prod. This article is not eligible for the newly implemented

WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Definitely
WP:CRYSTAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:CRYSTAL JBsupreme (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
WP:CRYSTAL violation" "should be discussed only in the artist's article" Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - all information is

uncited
"subject to change", which indicates that it's most probably not verifiable at this point.

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 31 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 a7,

WP:SNOW, self-coined "genre" referring to one rock group's music. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Creavy

Obvious unsourced neologism, fails

WP:NEO. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: I don't even see any content in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Apparently it was A7'd right as I hit the AfD button on Twinkle. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Shafer

The article makes no explicit claims of notability of the subject, implying notability from the subject's work. After a search for references, I have found no evidence that this actor satisfies either the

profession-specific notability guideline

.

General notability guideline

I was unable to locate any significant coverage of the subject. Even the most inclusive of fansites (e.g., perfectpeople.net, tv.com, childstarlets.com) did not have any material information on her. I have not found any coverage of her in any magazines or newspapers other than the aforementioned variety.

Profession-specific notability guideline

This guideline encompasses three criteria:

significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions
large fan base or a significant "cult" following
unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

The subject satisfies none of these. The media search referenced above demonstrates that the subject does not meet the second criterion.

A review of the subject's oeuvre at IMDB demonstrates that the subject does not meet the third criterion (being part of a group nomination for a non-notable award with twelve other youngsters does not proclaim notability).

An inspection of reviews of the subject's filmography demonstrates conclusively that she does not meet the first criterion. In a sampling of reviews (Ebert, NY Times, Variety, BBCi) neither she nor her character ("Little Girl, in the case of Fat Albert) is mentioned for any of her feature films or TV series.

While it is possible that the subject will achieve notability in Aussie and Ted, or in some future release,

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

.

Bongomatic (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:N. Wikipedia is not a place for the biography of every glorified extra in cinema. Badger Drink (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per very detailed nomination. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:43, 30 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 Eiji Ōtsuka. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahō no Rouge Lipstick

)

No evidence that subject satisfies the

inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. --Farix (Talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge to author/writer Eiji Ōtsuka, as the article claims it's one of the first works by that person. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:34, 23 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, Sandstein 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per anon above and per
WP:FICTION. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:42, 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism

)

~~Only one third-party review,~~ ~~red link author. Sources don't seem to say much about the book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn' per sources below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Though I like[8], [9], and [10], Wikipedia can't include every single book ever written with 3 mentions online. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is not a mention. Schuym1 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep as serving to improve wiki. Despite the long title, the book itself has notable use per being #1 in the top 10 books on autism, being used by The National Autistic Society, being used by Children, Youth and Women's Helth Service, as well as countless write-ups and review: Burpsbibsandbeyond, North Fond du lac Library, Special Needs/Special Education Ccollection, Teach More Love More, Portage la Prairie Regional Library, Another Piece of the Puzzle, Myomancy.com, Ebscohost.com, Findarticles, Books.google, etc, etc, etc. This one is notable. It could expansion and further sourcing... but most definitely notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backpack Vagabond Records

Non-notable independent record label. Millbrooky (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:ORG. Jeremiah (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
advertisement ("Look for Shut Up and Rap: Volume Two due out in November."). Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per
WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails notability per
WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:13, 28 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Valley Mall

~~No sources found. Only news hits were press releases or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn and major props to Eastmain, who's really good at digging up sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's refs. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have also added a few more references that go to both notability and verifiability, one of which is from a different reliable source to avoid the "single source" problem. All of these references should be integrated into the article as they are used to expand it. - Dravecky (talk) 21:00, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellicus

This nearly-5KB article does very little to establish notability of the company it's devoted to (and I mean "devoted" in the biblical sense - this article is borderline G11), mentioning (without any citations to back this assertation up) that "NASSCOM and Red Herring have recognized Intellicus as an innovative and fast emerging technology company" - something which could be anything from a write-up on the company to mere inclusion in a list of recently-emerging companies in the tech sector. I suspect that the article may well be a copyvio of an off-line publicity guide, but cannot prove this mere gut feeling of mine. The main contributor to this article (INTLCS (talk · contribs)) is a pretty obvious conflict-of-interest. Google returns slightly more than 1,500 results, the first fifty of which seem to be either the company's own press releases, or mirrors of Wikipedia. 1,500 results may sound like a lot, but a search for the phrase "duck chat" - as a phrase, mind you - returns nearly the same amount of results. At least I have some leads if I ever want some one-on-one with a dandy waterfowl. Returning back to the article at hand - keep in mind that those open-press releases and Wiki-mirrors are the fifty best matches. The Goggle algorithm may not be flawless, but somehow I doubt there's a great source buried twenty pages deep. If there is, I'm sure the AfD process will weed it out. As this stands, at best, this is a company hanging out at the very fringe of notability whose article would need a complete, from-the-ground-up rewrite before it is suitable for the project. Badger Drink (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete
WP:SPAM. Jeremiah (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep there is a factual basis in the article tat describes the company & its products, so it is not G11, but the importance need to be shown by some information about notability of the products, or market share or revenue. DGG (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Using the phrase business intelligence solutions ought to be a dead giveaway. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (
MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

All that is neccesary is to run the bot for taking out the word "solutions" and replace by something random. Fixes a lot of spam. The standard for G11 is incapable of being improved. DGG (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This content doesn't belong here. --Lockley (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a G11, for the reasons that DGG has gone into above, but still a non-notable company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 31 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 List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam characters. , content is there for whoever wants to physically complete the merge. TravellingCari 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (Gundam)

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

WP:FICT. Too incidental to be included in List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam characters nor would the article name make for a good redirect. Disputed prod. Character simply introduces each episode and gives the next episode's preview. --Farix (Talk) 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with WP:FICTION. See this discussion. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to the character list Striker? Not notable and too incidental? He's one of the most iconic things about G Gundam. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Stalker may not be a major character in plot, but he is an iconic part of the series, and is worth mentioning.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:58, 30 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 didn't create a redirect because of the other possible meanings. --Tone 11:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Century

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

Disputed prod. Prod reason was
WP:NOT#PLOT. Farix (Talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete pretty sure this is on a Gundam wiki already, no need for it to be here. JuJube (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - [11]. Oh, in fact, it's an exact copy from the wikia. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT#PLOT as with nom. Plus, exact copy from gundam.wikia article. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Mobile Fighter G Gundam, as a plausible search term.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to the G Gundam article 70.55.86.100 (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 17:00, 30 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) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanzen Mushusei: Sorezore no Houkago

Kanzen Mushusei: Sorezore no Houkago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that subject satisfies the
inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 21:19, 22 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:MOVIE. Jeremiah (talk) 20:13, 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 it was withdrawn. I'm not an admin.
shoot! 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Kinobe

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

~~Band with no claim to notability. The article has existed for a while which is why I didn't speedy tag it.~~ Bonadea (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn because notability has been shown and verifiable sources have been provided. Thank you very much to those who helped improve it! --Bonadea (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refute the claim that Kinobe are a band with "no claim to notability". Have a look at their Myspace and Youtube pages to see that they are still producing music and videos, and a new album is due to be released in January 2009 on the suitemusique label. The band were inactive for some time, due to restrictions placed on them by a record company merger. In essence, they were retained in a contract by a label that was being taken over by another, and not allowed to release any songs with other record companies until the term of their original contract had expired. But that is no longer the case, as you would plainly see if you visited the aforementioned Myspace and Youtube pages.Kinobeoddjob (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the criteria for notability on Wikipedia (WP:notability), and you will see that Kinobe probably doesn't yet satisfy it. Just wait until there is more significant coverage in third-party sources. Jeremiah (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Only one review. ~~Fails~~
~~WP:MUSIC.~~ Jeremiah (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
*Delete: The criteria for a band is not satisfied.
~~shoot! 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Keep. The independent review is significant coverage, and there's another article here (subscription only). Their music has also been used in two films [12]. That's 2 criteria of
WP:MUSIC met.--Michig (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

...and there's more coverage from The Independent here, here, and here, and the BBC here. A few of these are trivial but should give an indication of notability. Their music has also been used in television shows [13] --Michig (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and there's another article here (again subscription only), a review from MTV Asia here, and there's this from The Guardian. And they've released 3 albums, 2 of which were on
WP:MUSIC met. Shall I stop there?--Michig (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Good work, Michig. Keep. Jeremiah (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- Keep. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of all that is discussion, I don't see the band listed as a Jive affiliate. As it stands, the article has no reliable sources, and the 'keepers' could turn this into a viable article. I've saved a few articles for deletion, but nothing I see with the diffs provided seems to be cut and dry.
shoot! 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

They are no longer with Jive Records, so don't appear on the Jive website's list of current artists.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources out there that confirm their album releases on Jive. E.g. this feature, and this review. Or check on Amazon.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm new to this, or somewhat new to AFD, the second source is convincing. The first, I see as a blog. I do like the civil discussion, however. I think this is what makes WP so great. The article is poor. No doubt. Can your provide another source that affirms another album on Jive so I can strike my vote? ^{shoot! 09:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Addendum, I'll be more than happy to rewrite this article if provided. Thanks. shoot! 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is certainly poor and needs rewriting - I'll see if I can find a decent source for the album labels later.--Michig (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]}

I did it from the ground up. I deleted it all yes, and rewrote it. I'm never about deleting if it can be saved.
shoot! 10:07, 28 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 Leonora Children's Cancer Fund. Sandstein 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Knatchbull

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

Few people have achieved much that is notable by the age of 5. Having a charity,
talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Leonora Children's Cancer Fund, merge whatever biographical information that can be sourced, nuke the rest. If notability somehow "transfers" from being the namesake of an organization created by a notable figure, I can only imagine the fun Stephen Colbert will have. Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge anything that can be salvaged. Badger's solution sounds reasonable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap Too boaring! --86.29.240.74 (talk) 18:55, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny's deaths

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of ways Kenny dies

Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths

Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Kenny's deaths

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

I feel this article should be deleted because it lacks any real notability. It has absolutely no sources or references at all! It is full of original research. It is of very poor quality and this subject is probably only worthy of five or six sentences in the main
talk) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article is a violation of no original research (
WP:NOR) policy. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Kenny McCormick, for obvious reasons. Well written and researched, it just needs some sources. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kenny McCormick. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is it again that we should be merging uncited original research into another article with the very same problem? There is a firm policy against this. The "obvious reasons" are not obvious and any !vote not congruent with current policy can and should be discounted on those grounds by the closing admin. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my god, let's merge Kenny! But not the endless in-universe details. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What information that is documented by a third party source would you like to see merged? Just asking. JBsupreme (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge his death seems to get some coverage. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge; Kenny's deaths are not restricted to fans of South Park any longer, as the running gag has become a well-known part of popular culture. Notable and clearly well researched. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to keep asking the SAME question over and over but "well researched" by whom? Fellow Wikipedia editors? There are no third party sources to speak of cited in this article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge At the moment it has obvious reference issues but the fact that Kenny's deaths are no longer a phenomenon restricted to South Park, but have shown up in other parts of popular culture clearly show that notability not one of the issues this page has. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist.[14][15][16] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kenny's deaths are a cultural phenomenon; if the article is properly sourced (and as already demonstrated, the sources exist), there's no reason to delete. SchutteGod (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I strongly feel that until proper sources appear in the article. It is still classed as
talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The keep votes a perfectly valid. There is no
WP:OR violation since everything written on that article is sourced on the episodes. Just check the South Park website, watch the episode, verify the information and correct if necessary. EconomistBR 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This still isnt notable enough for its own article! If not deleted it should clearly be merged with the
talk) 12:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but merge all of these stubs into
many available sources, and are more than just news. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The article has quality and it can't be violating
WP:RS since it is sourced on the episodes themselves, that means that everything that was written is verifiable. This article has been under the AfD process too many times. EconomistBR 02:30, 31 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.
Tikiwont (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Regional differences and dialects in Indian English

Regional differences and dialects in Indian English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

~~Original research, synthesis and unsourced~~ I withdraw the nom. Thanks to Uncle G. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of an utter lack of sourcing. This article was created in 2006 from one person's observations, and the contributions since then seem to be observations as well. The sad thing is, there are linguistic studies of dialectical differences. Take out the IPA symbols, and it's not much different than noticing that American Southerners make "fair" a two-syllable word, and "fire" one syllable. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and source There is material for all of this in the various anglo-indian dictionaries and associated works, but among the scripts I cannot work with is ipa. DGG (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Whatever the article's current state, sources should exist. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 23 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would probably be easiest for all involved in this article to start from the ground up. For sheer readibility and flow, if nothing else, encyclopedia articles should be built around acceptable sources, rather than written as a personal essay with sources desperately crammed in here and there later on. No prejudice on seeing the article recreated as a balanced, scholarly summation of the information available in reputable third-party sources (that is to say, as an article, rather than a linguistic term paper). Badger Drink (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)_{"Easiest" != "only". Uncle G's work has improved the article. Badger Drink (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Uncle G has made a number of improvements to the article since October 27, and has cleared up my objections to OR and a lack of sourcing. I hope that others will revisit the article, which appears to be being rebuilt "from the ground up" as suggested. Good work, G. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since has been improved as requested and is really interesting to me (a total ignoramus of dialects like this) and a fascinating contribution for tracing the British colonial effect from pov of an
Australian
.

Keep but large amounts have been removed from the article since August - why? Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure it's because Indian English has
loan words, and somebody borrowed them. Nothing has been removed that can't be returned. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 30 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) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddbodz

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

This article about collectible cards does not demonstrate notability and has no sources. Grahame (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable version of cereal box prize, no lasting societal impact. Fails WP:Notability (toys and games). WWGB (talk) 22:19, 22 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't create individual articles about random Cracker Jacks prizes either and for good reason. If the article was actually supported by reliable sources I might be able to support a merge, but for now there is nothing to consider. JBsupreme (talk) 01:12, 28 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. Charted hits equals notability. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (rapper)

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

Born Gangstaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a BLP article which lacks sources, there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and expand. Asserts notability with two #1's on a notable chart, and it turns out that's not the only chart Boss was on. This is a hard name to Google, but I did find this AMG bio which is certainly non trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First Def Jam female rapper. Charted and released by a major label. ^{shoot! 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]}

Strong Keep. A quick search before nominating would have found plenty - an allmusic bio and review, Detroit Metro Times article, and from Google News, articles in the LA Times amongst others. Try tagging as unreferenced and leaving time for others to find sources next time if you're not prepared to search for sources yourself.--Michig (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TenPoundHammer and Michig. Xihr 09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TenPoundHammer and Michig. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 28 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 G3 by MrDarcy, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amerian language

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

Looks like a
WP:HOAX to me. No hits for "Lingeli Amerăn" on Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as hoax. Probably inspired by the large number of mispellings of American you can find. Or this novel. [17]Watch out for an article on Edrosian next.
talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

G3 Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:39, 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 Redirected to
DARTH PANDA^duel 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Channy

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

The article is ostensibly about a supposed nickname "Channy" but after the first sentence the article
coatracks into a discussion of the name "Chana" and from there into a discussion about a character in the Bible with that name. No information that is actually about the topic appears. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While this does not qualify as
Hannah (Bible). I agree this shouldn't be a redirect, since this is a nickname now used for women with the same name as the Biblical story, not an alternate name for that woman. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Couldn't find a good way to describe nonsense without linking to
DARTH PANDA^talk 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Hannah (given name): I had a discussion with the author at User talk:Channylerner and she understood what was involved. Then she tried to change the article to a redirection, but User:Shell Kinney changed it back. I told her I'd propose the change to a redirection here. I won't push hard for this: "Channy" is just a nickname for a variant form of "Hannah"--well, it's the form for someone whose name was transliterated from Yiddish or one of several other languages, but it's a suggestion.—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Hannah (given name) as above. I see it's already been redirected. --Lockley (talk) 23:51, 30 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 keep. Synergy 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (6th nomination)

List of shopping malls in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a directory of malls and thus the page fails
WP:NOTDIR policy. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Simply saying "contested PROD" is an incredibly inadequate summary; an article that has been AfD'd as many times as this one has been should not have had a PROD in the first place. Keep per the logic provided in all the previous discussions, the most recent of which was barely two months ago. GlassCobra 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Last afd was only two months ago and was a keeper. No real rationale given. This list has a clear focus (sort of) and, though far from complete, can be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on the procedural grounds that this article was a "keep" at AfD less that two months ago, no article that survives four rounds at AfD should ever get a prod tag without an amazingly good reason, and the nomination ignores both precedent and policy in its rationale. - Dravecky (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy, as above. No article that survives an AfD should get a prod, period. That isn't what
WP:PROD is for, uncontroversial deletion.John Z (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I see no real reason for deleting it, and it already passed a few AfDs, after which nothing much seems to have changed Firebat08 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep also on the grounds this passed AFD with a keep decision less than 2 months ago. 23skidoo (talk) 22:28, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

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

Delete non-notable proposed product per
WP:COATRACK for the non-notable company. Borderline CSD G11 Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Vaporware for the comics fan. If/when something is actually released, I suspect this company will be considered notable. For now, though, WP:CRYSTAL rules. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Why is this just now being brought up for deletion but was fine before?? The article was created following wiki guidlines and cites plenty of refrences. The article was abused by a person User:ShockerHelp who had nothing to do with the company Shocker Toys. I the article creator have nothing to do with the company either. The line has been shown in finished format and can be cited as well as being in Diamond Previews catalog shipping in December. The article was skewed by User:ShockerHelp to seem like a company person has made all the changes and furthermore this article is only being put up for deletion because of bias opinions. Also this is not a non-notable company they have produced product for Adult Swim's Dethklok show as well as a Mini Maxx vinyl figure for MTV and a product called Shockinis. I think these people throwing this article to the wind need do a bit more research before entering their bias opinions.--JMST (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed for all of five days. So "fine before" does not mean much. The core reason for the timing of this deletion debate is the post on the Admin noticeboard. That post brought a lot more eyes to the article. More eyes can swing both ways though. In this case, it brought the article to the attention of someone who, upon looking at the article, did not consider it to be an article that was within the policies of the project. Someone who almost certainly was not aware of the article before the ANI post. I know that *I* had never heard of the company before that post.

As for countering the deletion arguments, the core argument here is
WP:SPAM, which gets at the reasons for the article's presence on the project. If it's here for the purpose of promoting the line, "raising awareness", etc., then it's moving over into advertising/spam territory. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of notability, the product isn't even on sale yet! JMST, it's come up for deletion because it was brought to the attention of people who realised that it was about a product that didn't exist. Maybe it will be notable someday by Wikipedia standards (read
talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

But some of it was sold at San Diego Comic Con 2008 so should that just be the only product left on the page instead of deleting it?? If those are the rules that it has to be a notable product there is over 100 refrences stating that the Maxx from Indie Spotlight was sold at Comic Con 2008 so that should permit the page to at least list that and maybe mention the coming of Indie Spotlight Series1 as a whole in Dec 2008. Am I correct in assuming this and how do we fix article to say this and comply with Wiki rules?--JMST (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Indie Spotlight action figures have been sold to date. The Maxx sold at SDCC 2008 was not part of this proposed line. Therefor, by the standard of
WP:CRYSTAL, I'm afraid that this article should be deleted. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

If you notice in this picture link http://www.shockertoys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2797 The box clearly states Indie Spotlight.--JMST (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference link to the picture in the article leads to nowhere. If you notice on the Shocker Toys product page (http://www.shockertoys.com/store.php), The SDCC Maxx figure is not part of the proposed Indie Spotlight lineup. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are all from highly specialized websites and do not appear to be particularly reliable... The tone from the ones I read appeared to be along the lines of people hoping this actually happens, as opposed to neutral journalists reporting on something that is actually likely to happen. IMO it would be great if this does happen, but right now this is just one company talking about a product they would like to launch and have maybe sold a few prototypes. Maybe JMST would like the article userfied in case it does become notable at some point in the near future? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to reiterate that the article was posted by an affiliate of the company and is Spam.

An exchange from the AN/I that JMST started on me (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=248131943)
"User:ShockerHelp has been vandalizing an article Indie Spotlight We have taken the appropriate steps Wiki has asked us to do. We have ignored this user ShockerHelp who has no affiliation with the company as we found out today. We have posted a few warnings on the User:ShockerHelp talk page along with an offical Wiki block warning. We have silently changed the article back to it's original content more then once. ShockerHelp has not fixed the article or added any factual info but added slander and eronious comments. ShockerHelp has not edited any other articles on Wiki leading one to believe the user has created an account only to vandalize the Wiki system. --JMST (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Who's "we"? Is User:JMST a shared account? This seems to be a content dispute between two SPAs, neither of which seems to be contributing NPOV material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)"

Nobody mistakenly uses the royal "we" without reason. The article was posted to promote a business ShockerHelp (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes sometimes I make mistakes as my english is not at best. You have no right to say I am promoting anything just like I can say you are a little troll out to destroy a company and their article for your own satisfaction which is not proper in the Wiki world.--JMST (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIV Take the time to read it. By the way, what is your native language? ShockerHelp (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - and userfy (Userfy means to put the article into your "user page" so it can be accessed by you later instead of having it lost) for
WP:CRYSTAL.--Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure what userfied is but the one product sold was not a prototype but a pre-release product on its own under the Indie Spotlight label. If that can be cited and then the to come added as shortform I can understand. Also User:ShockerHelp is using the companies name but is not affiliated with them and as far as their sales page the product is listed there and it is not listed with Series1 as it is a pre-release to series1 and is it's own product under the Indie Spotlight flag which is the whole purpose of this article. It may have been hastely posted but I thought with it releasing in Dec and already for sale in numerous stores including Diamoind comics I could write about it. I think the Mini Maxx indie spotlight figure should be taken into consideration and the reference linked to SDCC is a very noteworthy site and has been around for years and is the direct site of San Diego Comic Con. the company also produces Adult Swim's Dethklok figures which has Ref links here at Wiki to Television bumps showing the toys which makes them more then a notable company.--JMST (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand most of what you just wrote, but I must ask, how do you know who is and isn't affiliated with the company if you're not part of the company yourself? I've never heard of the store "Diamoind comics." These toys are not for sale there or anywhere else.ShockerHelp (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them if you were affiliated with them through an IM and they said no you were not and they had no knowledge that there was even an article on Wiki about them or the Indie Spotlight line. As far as Diamond I misspelled it but Diamond Comics Distributors are selling the Indie Spotlight line and are listed in the July and october issue of Diamond Previews which is sold at all comic book shops across the United States which is where I ordered my set.--JMST (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're in Instant Messenger contact with a company to which you have no prior affiliation? ShockerHelp (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are a disgruntle member of their forums who was banned and came here to Vandalize to vent your anger?--JMST (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability presented within the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the Indie Spotlight line or the company Shocker Toys?? The product line has notability being mentioned in Washington times and San Diego Comic Con direct website as well as the company in those same higher functioning news channels.--JMST (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:Spam JMST is an affiliate of Shocker Toys. A thread comment in the 5th reference in the first draft of the Wiki Indie Spotlight article (http://www.action-figure.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2089):

"Pre-Order Indie Spotlight shipping in December

by shockertoys ([email protected]) on Oct 22, 2008 - 12:00 PM

(User information | Send a message http://www.shockertoys.com)

Pre-Order Indie Spotlight shipping in December

http://www.shockertoys.com/store.php"

Article is dated Jan. 5, 2007. Last comment before this one was Jan. 11, 2007.

On Oct 22, 2008, this comment was added to the article by Shocker Toys, someone who has in the past, both in the particular article and in others on the site, represented himself as the owner of Shocker Toys. On the same day, Oct 22, 2008, the Wiki Indie Spotlight article is created by JMST citing this long dead and forgotten article. Check the other references, including the ones that were deleted. Wikipedia was just one stop in a binge of spamming across the net. ShockerHelp (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does me finding refrences through google make me an affiliate of Shocker Toys?? This is bogus and childish attempts by User:ShockerHelp to now have the article deleted. But yet ShockerHelp wanted to change the article to read negitivly and now wants to have it deleted.--JMST (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that separately, on the exact same day, you both just happened to dredge up an article from almost two years ago? ShockerHelp (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting anything just explaining that I used Google to find all the references I used in ther article. If it is this hard to write articles on Wiki I just won't bother especially since trolls/vandals can just swoop in and cause all this controversy. I am just a collector who loves action figures and all the other lines I collect already have wiki pages so I figured this should have one as well. --JMST (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShockerHelp has ruined an article that could have been userfied or fixed to show a viable toyline with one figure already released to the public notably. I will not be defending this article as it seems bullies and trolls are allowed to do as they mey here at Wiki. I therfore change my vote to *Delete and will probably not be using Wiki anymore as it is to hard to put up an article about something I enjoy. It is also obvious that ShockerHelp has posted this Wiki article up on some unknown site to have others come here and vandalize the article further as can be seen in the change page with unkown users. This toyline was also mentioned in Washington Times until the Vandal removed the referance from the article http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/08/shocker-standing-tall-after-action-figure-flap/--JMST (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert/press release, really, for un-notable product, backed by very thin sources. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again how is the Washington Times a thin source??--JMST (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fluff piece touting a release date of last Summer for a toy line that still does not exist. It does nothing to address
WP:Coatrack, or WP:Spam.ShockerHelp (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually it's am important article about a bigger company stealing an idea from a smaller toy company not a fluff piece.--JMST (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would like to see an article on this line when it does hit retail, but currently the article probably should be deleted due to
WP:Crystal. Two limited edition items sold as convention exclusives do not constitute an action figure line. Whatever the reason, Shocker Toys does have a history of announcing and promoting product that does not see release. Until the first wave of figures is commercially available, this can only be an article about what Shocker Toys intends the toys to be, which is not the same thing as verifiable factual information. The article is also having problems which may not be deletable offenses but are still worrying. ShockerHelp obviously has negative feelings about the line and is repeatedly vandalizing the article, but JMST has also used the article to attack Toy Buz.Marvel Toys by bringing up the completely unproven allegations that the company stole the concept of action figures of independent comics characters and several licenses away from them. -- Demonskrye (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I stand by everything I wrote for this article. Nothing I wrote is false. Please note, though I did revert some edits to a previous version, I did not write any of the early, admittedly rather harsh, attacks. I simply felt that though the "attack" version of the article was not in the spirit of Wikipedia, it was still much closer to the objective truth than the article as initially presented. I was simply being too lazy to make real edits and unaware of the policies against excessive reverts. Being made aware, I took the time to make proper edits. ShockerHelp (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the article to attack anyone but only stated fact on what I found on the net. The Action-Figure article shows proof that ToyBiz took the line and warned stores that they not Shocker Toys could get the line off the ground. The proof is in the article. Also the case of someone coming in here and harming an article is the same as all the other sites I have seen mention Shocker Toys it is like they are on a mission to ruin the company and that should not be allowed here on Wiki--JMST (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reliable sources have taken notice of the importance of this new product, a Wikipedia article might be considered. Unreleased products have difficulty proving themselves by the standards of WP:Notability. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Bilby's idea we start a wiki article for the company Shocker Toys as it has plenty of refrences, I am too new to touch that though. Then we can trim this article down and have a redirect to Shocker Toys until the line is released. Oh and again I say "Washington Times" They are a very reliable source that took notice. --JMST (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI's definition of a Citation: A citation is a reference to a source (not always the original source), published or unpublished.--JMST (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find out what a reliable source is here:
WP:RS ShockerHelp (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It says citations needed!--JMST (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys, User talk:Smeagal It all seems so familiar... ShockerHelp (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so what I brought up the same thing when it was said I should start an article about Shocker Toys. It seems the same thing happened there with a bunch of trolls like yourself coming in and destroying the credit if the article and the company. If they created the article themselves then I can understand under the spam rule for its deletion. But I think they have enough creds and citations and Reliable sources now to be an article. But Shocker Toys said they will have nothing to do with either of the articles as they do not want to violate the spam rule here at Wiki. Yes they actually care instead of violating rules like making up names to fool wiki editors, vandalizing and other acts against wiki. You need to leave these articles alone as it seems you have a biasis and vandetta against them. From what I was told you are a disgruntle and banned member from their forums according to your IP address. Anyways I digress I think Shocker Toys should at least have an article as they have released a ton of products already according to info on their forums. Shockinis and conventions exclusives. As far as Indie Spotlight as I said before I agree with Bilby this should be a redirect to a Shocker Toys article if someone non-bias and experianced can write it.--JMST (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, since you care so much about not violating rules, you should be aware that the name calling in which you are engaging is itself a violation.
WP:CIV ShockerHelp (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I have recreated the Shocker Toys article and others are helping fix it properly to Wiki's standards please help if you can and stop the vandals from ruining it. Also if we can I placed hangon to this article so we can redirect it to the Shocker Toys article where we can place a small info that is verifiable about Indie Spotlight.--JMST (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will be able to find more sources for the new
WP:CORP if we are going to keep an article on it. The Washington Times article is not (in my opinion) strong enough to sustain an entire Wikipedia article on either of these topics. Note that editor JMST re-created the Shocker Toys article today after speedy deletion, which is against our policies. A previous version of Shocker Toys was deleted in April, 2007 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I placed a hangon tag and it was ignored because I forgot to remove the speedy delete tag so that is my mistake.--JMST (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at it and it's .... weak... I think if better sources aren't found in a couple of days, it should be killed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article in the Bergen Record about the company and they had a live TV bump for their SDCC toy of Dethklok? I cannot find the bergen record article as it was on the Indie Spotlight article and was undone I think. But a live TV mention and Bergen Record along with Washington Times should constitute something, yes? Plus they have been in 4 or 5 major magazines that they mention on their site.--JMST (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge this information into an article about the company itself. Vaporware cannot really be notable. The COMPANY has achieved notability for its David vs Goliath stand against Mattel, but the products have not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the David in a David and Goliath scenario to be considered notable, I would think that the David would have to have made some sort of an impact. I see no evidence that Mattel, or any other toy company, is even aware that they exist, much less that they have overcome them in even the slightest manner. ShockerHelp (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't exist either, maybe you don't have enough creds to even be here ShockerHelp.--JMST (talk) 14:32, 31 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 Nomination withdrawn. Article had been the victim of long-standing vandalism, which I've
boldly reverted. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fantom

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

Non-notable rapper. He is not signed to a label and I cannot find any
reliable sources to establish his notability. TN‑X-Man 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per A7. No sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wondered why this article had been around for so long. It looks like a legitimate article got hijacked. Check out this version here. I think reverting back to this version would be the correct course here. Opinions? TN‑X-Man 15:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brady (broadcaster)

Greg Brady (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

biographical page on a podcaster, lacks reliable 3rd party references, lacks notability Rtphokie (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not established (a person cannot be notable for merely being a fan of the Miami Dolphins, even if that person is from Canada) and the article lacks the sources required for verifiability. - Dravecky (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable podcaster. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

When I first saw this, I thought this was going to be one of the easiest Keeps in the history of AfD - broadcaster (not just podcaster as in the nom) in three countries, commentator for the BBC on the Superbowl etc., but then I tried to find the independent reliable sources, and am coming up short at the moment. Made more difficult by a character from a 1970s TV series having the same name. Neutral for me at the moment. - fchd (talk) 19:38, 28 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 (deleted as
CSD A7 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). So Why 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fragile Porcelain Mice

Fragile Porcelain Mice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

standard band vanity that appears to have been put up by the band's webmaster. Non notable, prod removed without comment, no sources, page is clearly written by an insider.
talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Addition: I just discovered that an article with different capitalization was speedy deleted once before. --
talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, textbook case of A7. Badger Drink (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) _{Tagged Badger Drink (talk) 19:48, 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 keep. El on ka 16:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of electric vehicle battery manufacturers

List of electric vehicle battery manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of companies does not indicate the notability of the companies and uses no RS sources. This is essentially one big
wp:ELNO #14 violation. NJGW (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Most of the companies listed are notable in the sense of having Wikipedia articles, the standard for such lists. (And most of those are specific companies, making this product only or primarily). DGG (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment just because some of them have articles does not guarantee that they are notable companies... many of those were created or mostly edited by Mac (talk · contribs), who is the main contributor to this list. Also, would you suggest deleting all those with no article and removing the non-rs refs? NJGW (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The purpose of lists is Information, Navigation & Development, not to specifically point out WP:N of items on the list. At this point, more than %75 of the wikilinks are blue, so it seems to me to be doing a good job so far. In my mind, the EL you are refering to are the Citations for the provided information. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This, as any other articles taged for deletion by NJGW are important ones. --Mac (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the very most should be a table within
WP:ELNO #14? All this looks like is a list of companies which build a product and a list of their customers. How is that encyclopedic? Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Lots of blue links, and those articles have sources (though most of them need to have their references checked, and more added). NJGW: most of the articles weren't in fact created by Mac (though he's edited most of them) and even if they had been, that's not the point - let's talk about the article,
Wikipedia is not paper. I did wonder whether it should be converted to a category, but that argument could be made for any list. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:29, 31 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 per
G3 by Canderson7. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sam Depport

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

Hoax/nonsense, 16 year old footballer who drove a bus for 32 years, and is the son of Peter Pan? Oh, my aching sides. Note that googling "Sam Depport" and Everton comes up with only the WP page and a comment on the everton website by a "Sam Depport" [18]. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total bollocks, most of it is a copy of Marouane Fellaini with nonsense substituted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Giant Snowman 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the page's author is User:DeppoLOL - methinks the legend that is Sam Depport? Giant Snowman 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as hoax so tagged. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 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 delete. SPAs discounted. Sandstein 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aasis Vinayak PG

Aasis Vinayak PG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally speedied by me as a non-notable person ("budding physicist" doesn't connote established notability to me, and "ethical hacker"?? However, the material was recreated, and given the list of refs, that can be taken as an assertion of notability, so further speedy isn't the answer. The creator asked that it be brought here. For my part, I don't see the notability, and suggest delete AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy rewrite - The article reads as something I'd expect to see on a personal web page or social networking site. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is
WP:NOT#MYSPACE A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should be retained. BTW, he is popular as a "columnist" and as a "programmer" and not as a "budding physicist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthika.kerala (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's main emphasis is presently on his undergraduate studies in physics. If he is notable as a columnist or a programmer instead of as a student, please rewrite the article accordingly. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some parts should be rewritten Edwin.jacob (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC) — Edwin.jacob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Many tech magazines in India carry his columns . I think he is more popular as a columnist (and a programmer) than a physicist Sforshyam (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone smell
socks? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I've wondered about that, especially since this feels autobiographical. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I have made my first major edit in Wikipedia. I might have made errors. I request experienced editors to help me out. Sforshyam (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have re-edited the article as per the suggestion given by admins. Please remove the afd banner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sforshyam (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Dawson

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

As
Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cited references for the article are the subjects own website with links to their bio and their resume. The other link is to the official band website. "External links" are the same "References" links. (Should be noted that their is an AfD on the The Theives currently in progress. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails notability checks, badly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails criteria for
WP:ENTERTAINER. When even IMDb lists nothing for an actor but one minor role in a unreleased movie, the actor really has no notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom fails
WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails notability per
WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:35, 29 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) 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaijin in the Moat

The Gaijin in the Moat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per
WP:NOTNEWS E Wing (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This doesn't appear to be written as an encyclopaedic article and includes very little useful information. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like an unsupported Internet Meme. I don't believe notability as anything beyond a brief news item is established. -Verdatum (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not encyclopedic, as "Gaijin in the Moat" was not a title used anywhere in the media reporting this one-off event, and gets zero Google hits other than for wiki-derived occurrences. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News story of transient interest. Not worth merging into Tokyo Imperial Palace, Moat, Crime in Japan, Tokyo or anywhere else. Far less noteworthy than suicides who jump from famous bridges, for example. Perp wasn't even charged with a crime, so it rates right up there with not cleaning up after your dog. Fg2 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it is a very important article, and should be expanded on for its cultural impact. The image that many Japanese have of foreigners is quite controversial and this incident could be used for future study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin in london (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a crazy guy trespassed, threw rocks, then went for a swim, making it into the japanese tabloids for a few days? Otherwise had no impact on the world at large? As for Japanese views of "gaijin" there's an article on the term itself and also an article on the demographics of japan.
talk) 00:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh yeah, in case it wasn't obvious, the keep vote is an SPA who created the article.
talk) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per everyone above. About as silly a topic as I can possibly imagine disguised as an article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For damage control. It makes gaijin look bad in my Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.42.124 (talk) 15:51, 31 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. There is a clear consensus to keep the article, based on the comments below. Though this is a
oversight system. Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Magibon

Articles for deletion/Magibon (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Magibon (5th nomination)

Magibon

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

Magibon, the subject of this article has contacted me about her fear for the public using private information found on her wikipedia article. Also, she states that this article is damaging to the contractual agreements she signed. And that the various slander and vandalism is damaging to her popularity. As this article is about a relatively unknown personality, She and I ask of you, would it not be in the better interest of english wikipedia that it be deleted. So that the damage done to her image, may be contained. Pedofenion (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) — Pedofenion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment What? All the article contains is boring, flat statements lifted from publicly available sources. Please explain how any of it is "private information", "slander" or "damaging to contractual agreements". the skomorokh 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyPrivate information as in her full name, the place of her birth. the full name can't be seen now but it is repeatedly added, if you would check the article's history you will find a lot of personal info relating to Magibon. Particularly, the ones contibuted by the user arguecat. As to the breach in contractual agreements, I shall not be disclosing that as it may be slanderous in it self.Pedofenion (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Magibon's place of birth is not stated in any news sources, yet it is stated in the article. Further to add, this is all the proof one needs to show that contentious lies may be subtly pressed in to the article. Pedofenion (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove (or source) any unsourced information (like place of birth). Independent sources in the article indicate the notability of the subject. If bad information keeps getting added, perhaps some sort of protection is in order? Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (
MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, agree with Umbralcorax, I'm one of the editor for this article. Some of the information is available in Japanese Wikipedia Magibon and media. A protection is needed to prevent vandalism, some user try to vandalize, unconstructive edit or delete this article. BTW Pedofenion, would you explain of "slander" , "damaging to her popularity" , "contentious lies" in detail? Harmonic gear (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I'm not familiar with this kind of subject: but as there's nothing wrong with the article now for BLP grounds, this should not be deleted. If oversight is desired, those wanting it should email the oversight people. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and semi-protect - Article is fine as it is. If it's prone to vandalism then protect it. Also... I REALLY don't see how a Wikipedia bio can be a breach of contract for someone unless they are the ones who created their own article which would be a
WP:COI. I would venture to say that there are hundreds of vandalisms a day that "slander" other people and we are not deleting their articles! Argument to Delete is not a proper argument under Wikipedia policies as far as I know... --Pmedema (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I don't think this is an appropriate article, I totaly agree it should be deleted, it should of been a long time ago. I vote for deletion.Ariana-hime (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been nominated for deletion an other two times. Doesn't that say something? It needs deleting for good. All the vandalism it receives, means it will always look bad and be a bad article. And it is not even informative, unimportant and no one wants it. Please delete to avoid future situations like this, the article being nominated for the third time. Besides, it's really bad written and not much can be done about it. It'll never ever be a ok article.Ariana-hime (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon for some reason doesn't want it, so respect her wish and delete. Besides, who wants an article that gets damaged all the time? It will keep on geting damaged till it's deleted, so why not do something about it? It is the ONLY way to solve this problem. And as I've said, it's been nominated another two times, so that shows something's not right here.Ariana-hime (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ariana-hime?? This user vandalize the article, 2 times blanking, several disruptive and unconstructive edits. Harmonic gear (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
SquareOuroboros (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep nothing there now that seems sensitive by any customary standard. The subject has a self-commercialized presence on the internet, & is therefore not a private figure. DGG (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason given by DGG, above. Wikipedia has the
WP:BLP policy to guard against unsourced information being put into articles. If there's something here without a reputable source, delete it. If certain personal information has been made available via reputable media, then it's fair game. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is about notable net-personality with sufficient non-trivial references. Measures exist to prevent and remove unsourced personal information about living people, but deletion is not one. --DAJF (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the article being reliably sourced, the nominator provides no valid reasons for deletion. For all the talk of the article being slanderous, they are unable to give the slightest example of anything in the article being even remotely slanderous. And even if it were, that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. There is no private info on the article, either, and both that and the alleged vandalism are grounds for improvement, not deletion. The nominator's claim that Magibon wants this article deleted should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, and even if the nominator's unsupported claim could be proved true, that is still not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few months ago, I would have declared it fit for speedy deletion. However, inlight of recent Japanese press activity and cleansing of biase material relating to the article. I think it should and can be kept relating to grounds that the subject of the article has passed wiki grounds for notabilty. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article of the same title, shows a plenty more links and references to Japanese press article.
Hetelllies (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - If she wants it deleted, delete it, how would you feel if someone refused to delete something about you that you wanted to delete? And besides that, I've given other reasons above. Ariana-hime (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the nominater has a point. what if Magibon's Personal info, somehow compromise her online security, as in the republican american vice president candidate incident. Also, the article still as of yet contains a small piece of unsourced info, take the first name margaret as an example, it is never mentioned by any of the notable news links nor any of the references. Also I note that all if not most of the references refrain from using her real name, always referring to her by her alias. Even though, such an info might possibly not be harmful to the subject, who is to say how it can be used to gather more incriminating info related to her.
Hetelllies (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on Comment sorry about the long text description, had a hard time writing down sarah ,p,a,l,in
Hetelllies (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment for the nominator (and the subject her/himself) - There is nothing to prevent somebody to create an article about somebody else. If the subject is
WP:BLP policy. However, if you are the subject him/herself, then I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. Dekisugi (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There's plenty of non-controversial and non-damaging content in here. Remove the uncited problem content and put a semi-protection on the rest. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if she passes the relevant notability guidelines for "Internet celebrities" (not an area I'm very familiar with) then the article should be kept. Whether she wants the article removing or not is neither here nor there. Obviously remove any unsourced information, but requests like this are inappropriate. There doesn't appear to be any contentious material in there at present, but if the page is being vandalised some form of protection can be put in place. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This article gives out personal info such as, where she currently lives, what she used to work as, and the fact she is unemployed. As I have said, this pages receives to much vandalism, so deliting it is for the best. Besides that, she wants it deleted. Respect her privacy!Ariana-hime (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Ariana-hime Your opinion has been duly noted above. Please refrain from commenting further to simply repeat yourself, as this just gives the closing admin more to wade through. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Under
WP:UNDUE Delete, delete, delete, a thousand times delete. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, because the claims of this person called "Pedofenion" are wrong. He is not in any contact with Magibon and Magibon has never said anything like that. I have recommended Magibon to contact a lawyer about this incident. After Magibons recent media appearances there is no more doubt about her notability and therefore no reason for a deletion. It seems that even her haters have noticed this fact and therefore try to change the tactic.--Firithfenion (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Firitheon is a fan of Magibon who thinks it is ok to keep the article even with problems because of his "admiration" for Magibon,and with the fact she is not notable. In my country you have people coming out of reallity shows, being famous for a month and then forgoten. That happens all over the world and it does not make her notable. Also the article is unimportant, has been nominated another TWO times, wich means something is going on. Firitheon, a thing like this does not requier a lawyer, otherwise she would of hired one a very, very long time ago with all the hate she receives. Think first! You have been threatning Wikipedia and you expect people to take you seriously? No. It has nothing to do with hate by the way, it has been explained countless times. Delete the article to solve all the problems. Then Magie wont need a lawyer for sure! See? And how do you know he hasn't been in contact with her? She might of just stated it somewhere. You never know. You don't know everything she does. She could of said so. Ariana-hime (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pedofenion is a fan and friend of Magibon and obviously he keeps in contact with her. You DONT know. So dont say that he doesnt. Even he thinks this should be deleted. What does that say?Ariana-hime (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But this article is scandal of my Magi. I know you no like magi than me but you must keep this article it is for popularity of magi. she can keep coming to japan if her popularity high. So i want you protect her from people hating her a lot. she make good wife for me. please keep article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forryga (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/delete This article is serously just too hot of a topic to touch by people who are so involved with it. What we need is reliable nonbiased third party opinions on the article. Those such as Ariana Hime, Harmonic Gear etc really have no bearing in that they have edit-warred with one another and continue to do so. Is anyone even taking Pedofenion seriously by the way? She/He is obviously a troll. Pedo being short for pedophile, and fenion being the half end of the name of the actual creator of the article- User:Firithfenion. I have stated my reason for keep. My reason for delete is very similar in that this has never been an unbiased article. The person who created it is actually the president of her fan club, and the people who vandalize it come mainly from Encyclopedia Dramatica where there is a rival article, written before the Wikipedia version, that slanders Maggie. The editors there will continue to wage war on this stub of an article as a personal vendetta until it is deleted. So My consensus is: IF and only IF this article can be greatly improved in a short span of time supplemented with reliable sources and accurate content BY A NONBIASED< NONINVOLVED RELIABLE THIRD PARTY, then it should not be deleted. However, if it is just going to continuously be a hot spot for vandalism and warring between fans and trolls, then it might as well be deleted. Also, to address Forryga, this article should not be used as a tool for vanity any more than it should be used for edit warring. Popularity of the person in question is not the issue, the issue is the article itself. I saw the comment you left on pedofenion's page when I did a google search of the name. Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so, even if pedofenion is an obvious vandal.Yariau neko (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Hi Yariau neko, to be honest, I never want to involved in any kind of edit war, I had stop edit that article for 3 days, now DAJF is the editor, you can ask him what happened to the article, you can also check the Magibon article history too. I have contacted with administrator for advice before, but I got no good feedback. Ariana-hime received several notices from other users, but he/she refuse to stop. I couldn't find a better solution, unless someone apply Protection to the article. I also aware of this Encyclopedia Dramatica, this is another reason we need protection for the article. By the way, please take caution that ANYONE can create user account using ANY NAME to disturb the article and this discussion. Harmonic gear (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment The present Magibon article was recreated by
Hetelllies (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note — I have reported this issue to
MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete — unless you want me to start making wikipedia articles about Charles Trippy, the amazing atheist, sxephil, the YTwatchdog, and every other minor youtube "star". Being on youtube as your only claim to fame does not make you notable. ʄ!•¿talk? 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Fennessy above. How many hundreds of thousands of minor youtube "celebrities" are there? And they all deserve an entry in an encyclopedia? I don't think so. -- Codeine (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How many minor Youtube celebrities there are is not particularly relevant to this discussion. The subject of this particular article happens to have the most viewed Youtube channel in Japan, and has received extensive mainstream media coverage. Could you be more specific as to how you think this fails WP:Notability criteria? Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and semi-protect because the discussion didn't show what the real problem is with this article. There is a fair share of fans and anti-fans, if vandalism becomes a problem then protect the article. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many problems with this article. Many. And they will be till it's deleted. Besides, Magi herslf wants it deleted. If I was her I would to. It has to much personal information about her, but then again, if it didn't the article would be useless, since there's absolutely nothing to write about. She is NOT notable, just because she is famous for a week and then nothing, she hasn't done anything notable so it is useless. Either one way or the other it should be gone. Ariana-hime (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if someone gave personal information about you and left it for the world to see?Ariana-hime (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that the reasons for the AfD are "private information found on her wikipedia article", "damaging to the contractual agreements", "various slander and vandalism" and "she [asks] that it be deleted". None of those are reasons for deletion. The "private information found on her wikipedia article" is a violation of Biographies of Living Persons, and is a reason for editing the article and protecting it, not an argument for deleting it. The "damaging to the contractual agreements" isn't an argument for anything, really, because Wikipedia has no interest in whether articles damage or strengthen contracts. The "various slander and vandalism" is, again, an argument for editing and protection, not deletion. And the "she [asks] that it be deleted" reason is just silly. If that were Wikipedia policy, we wouldn't have any wikipedia pages for any living criminals, frauds, or quacks. We'd just convert wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a PR machine. Perhaps the article should be deleted because of lack of notability, I'm not sure. If that's the case, it would be best to resubmit that AfD as a separate one, to keep the notability issue separate from all of this hand-wavy "the article isn't very good, so instead of improving it, let's kill it" logic. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is, and it has been done before. See
MuZemike (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

After reading everything here, I don't know what is best to do. Tending to err on the side of caution, I would go with delete. It can always be added again later when the facts are actually on the table. FX (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye-rolling keep. I can't see any hint of notability here outside YouTube. I see credible evidence that this person is top of the pops in Japanese YouTube. (And if this weren't enough to tell me that she's of no interest to me, the description in the Salon article would do the job. This appears to be Japanese "pop culture" infantilism at its most soporific. But my opinion is by the way.) If you reach number 10 or 20 in the musical pops of Japan, you merit an article; I'd have thought that if you're even momentarily number 1 in the Japanese video pops you merit one too. After all, Japan is populous. For Fennessy above: I've never heard of "Charles Trippy, the amazing atheist, sxephil, the YTwatchdog", and if they're merely "minor youtube 'star[s]'" I'd advise against creating articles on them. But if -- whether because of their own talents, or mass idiocy, or mere happenstance -- they're even briefly major YouTube stars and you can create articles on them that satisfy en:WP policies, why not? -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep In detail: First claims that the individual is not notable are not credible. The individual meets
WP:BIO. Second, the specific information that the individual does not want in Wikipedia is in multiple other media sources. Whether that information should be in Wikipedia is a distinct issue that is a matter of editorial decision making not a matter for AfD. Third, Magibon has willingly participated and continues to participate in her public interaction as a celebrity (now having been a voice actor in a movie and having appeared in a public event as recently as October 22). Courtesy deletion for a willing public figure is not a great idea for reasons I and others have enumerated in the past. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I am missing something as to where this specific information can be found. (If pointed out, then I will gladly redact by G10 !vote.)
MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It appears to be in the non-English sources. There are references for all these claims in the article. Since I don't speak Japanese I can't verify that they are correct. But I presume editors would not have added sources that didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia, 45 minutes before nominating this article for deletion was obvious and slanderous vandalism of the article in question. If this request seriously came from the article's subject herself, why would she request help from the owner of an SPA who's only edits were to vandalise her article rather than contacting Wikipedia directly? --
Fugu Alienking (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To "obvious" and "slanderous", add "puerile". To save the time of anyone who's interested, here is the first edit of "Pedofenion", the troll who started this AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Please Delete. Thank you.Magichan (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason? -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 1 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 Withdrawn NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Majid

~~:Ibrahim Majid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ (delete) – (View AfD) No source he exist Matthew_hk t c 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew_hk t c 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew all. Matthew_hk t c 14:41, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 268

American Airlines Flight 268 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

News story (
WP:NOT#NEWS), and not a disaster with any impact. Mechanical trouble leading to a diversion is a fairly common occurrence. The most dramatic thing seems to be a slight runway overrun into the runway overrun zone, after which the passengers simply walked down the airstairs and were bussed to the terminal. This accident had no injuries, the damage to the plane consisted of one blown tire, and the event is unlikely to have any lasting impact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable minor incident, fails
WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom --John (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - read the NTSB preliminary report (just now cited). This was not just a blown tire, the electrical problem was quite significant.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the report, and appreciate the link to it; I'm glad that the flight did not end in tragedy. Still, what I see is an airline flight from Seattle to New York that reached Michigan before the decision was made to turn around and land in Chicago. The problems were unusual, the landing unscheduled, yet American Airlines Flight 268 has been making it from Seattle to New York since then. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to [Pprune] the cause was pilot error. No injuries or deaths, nothing notable. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. See also [this] pprune post, indicating new checklists resulted from the incident. Still need a
WP:RS
for the same info

Delete Problems with airplanes are fairly common and this one had no lasting impact on the passengers or flight regulations. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original editors were not advised of AFD. Doing so now.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is an interesting aircraft incident, and as an aviation safety enthusiast, I'll be reading the NTSB report, and possibly commenting about the incident in other forums. And there was certainly the potential for a serious problem or accident. But for Wikipedia purposes, I have to concede that it really was a pretty minor incident and not of encyclopedic importance or notability. --MCB (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- hardly even a newsworthy incident, certainly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 29 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 g3, vandalism, cut and paste of Ali Nasser. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Abdulla

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

No source, the only "reliable source" [19] actually for another another footballer,
Ali Nasser Saleh Matthew_hk t c 12:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:ATHLETE. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete nn BanRay 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, concur with nom - no sources found.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:40, 29 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) 06:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Mohammed PM

Azeem Mohammed PM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable source prove he actually exist, may be a hoax Matthew_hk t c 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete since the person's only 14 years old, I think
WP:AUTO. No sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:ATHLETE. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete nn BanRay 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pref speedy, simply not notable no sources etc etc--ClubOranje^Talk 09:19, 29 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. per snow. TravellingCari 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian independence movement

Victorian independence movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a political phenonomenon which is so dubious that it verges on being hoax and it provides no sources. Grahame (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable fad, just a
storm in a teacup. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, so, the Victorian Independence Movement no longer supports the independence of Victoria? Takes a Melburnian, I suppose. Non-notable fringe political group/movement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per the article: "The movement has yet to gain any official recognition, has died down since the 1999 referendum, and is now virtually non existent." Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Victoria did not vote for a republic, contrary to what the article states. The ACT was the only state or territory which got the required numbers. Total hoax. JRG (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:07, 28 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
List of Kill Bill characters#Sofie Fatale. Sandstein 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sofie Fatale

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

Any reason a character from one film should have their own article? Fails
WP:NOTABILITY, I was unable to mind significant mentions that would enable this article to be much more than a plot summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
List_of_Kill_Bill_characters#Sofie_Fatale. Had a quick look for references in reliable sources and all proved to be in passing. There's not much to say about Sofie that has been said reliably elsewhere. the skomorokh 12:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge any relevant info and sources in the list and redirect to avoid recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per everyone. JuJube (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a memorable character from a mainstream movie. Plus, article has multiple references.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:24, 1 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. Sandstein 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Attic Door

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

Non-
conflict of interest, and it reads like an advertisement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The film is awaiting it's premiere, so it will not been reviewed until that time. The film has received the following press during it's production (note working title A MONSTER IN THE ATTIC):

http://www.nightlightpictures.com/Nightlight_Pictures/Press_files/Park%20City%20Record%20-%20Attic.pdf - From Sundance 2008, THE ATTIC DOOR were guest on an official panel.

http://www.atmstravelnews.com/viewpressreleases.asp?ClientID=415&RID=1781 - Travel Press Release

http://www.nightlightpictures.com/Nightlight_Pictures/Press_files/The%20Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20-%20A%20Monster%20in%20the%20Attic.pdf - The Salt Lake City Tribune.

Will fix wording to read less like an advertisement. Thanks for your help. Theatticdoor (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~for now~~ as I just gave it a major sandblasting ~~few tweaks and go at improvement and sourcing in a few hours.~~ per film mos. Its not the strongest article, but its much prettier. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tweaks still haven't addressed the basic flaw that this film doesn't meet
WP:NF notability guidelines. Neither the film nor any of the principles have been the subject of any notable third-party press. The press that has been noted are simple press releases noting that a film had been made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Naturally not... as i have not begun. Just got home. Should have it improved and sourced in a couple hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The principle actress, Madison Davenport (IMDB Profile), has been the center of much attention in the media as the costar of Kit Kittredge: An American Girl with Abigail Breslin New York Times Review, the star of the new indie dramedy Humboldt County Official Site, and her nomination last year for an Annie Award (highest honor for animation work).Theatticdoor (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down cowboy... she getting attention is nice, and I was able to include a review/interview of her in relation to this film, but her notability does not as strongly reflect back on the film as you may wish, and saying "a notable person was in my film" is not as strong an argument as you might hope (see
WP:NOTINHERITED). Its helpful, but the film has to achieve its own notability and the article be sourced accordingly. Take a look... its better now. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
*Haha. Of course I understand having a notable person in the film doesn't qualify as the strongest argument. She is a principle, however, and I did want to respond on the WikiDan61 comment. There are a lot of festivals considering the film and only time will tell where it will premiere. I totally understand if this page needs to come down until that time.Theatticdoor (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the sources found by the guidelines suggest waiting until release in cases such as this. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I had found a source that showed the film has already screned, but the author removed it. I have asked him if the removal was an error or if the source is wrong. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source was wrong. The film has not screened at Newburyport Film Festival and is still awaiting it's premiere. The festival is just a fan of the film and put it on their page. Theatticdoor (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The blatant conflict of interest doesn't help much either.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I gotta gree with the COI issue... but the author, whoever he is, whatever his connection with the film, and whatever his reason for choosing THAT particular user name, has apparently filed an OTRS ticket about himself and his interests in the film. That aside, now that the article IS Wiki's I have spent some time removing POV, cleaninging up, wikifyng, amd sourcing. Further, on the author's talk page I have encouraged his copy/pasting of the article to a userspace at User:Theatticdoor/sandbox so as to continue working on it in the event that notability is not strengthened before the end of this AfD (hope to see that redlink turn blue). To a closing Admin, in the case that the decision is to delete, i ask that the page be copy/paste to that location if the author has not himself done so. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to sandbox. Thanks for the help :-) Theatticdoor (talk) 05:04, 29 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 Nightwish. The article has been redirected; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Nightwish Reborn

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

An Internet compilation filled with b-sides. Non notable per
Wikipedia:Music. It's not even listed at the band's website[20]. - Aki (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 23 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, Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Wikipedia:Music. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per above, just adding my $.02 for a clear consensus. --
T/C) 16:34, 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 deletion - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was claimed to be a hoax by lack of Google hits, but since Bangladesh is a developing nation, that is not really surprising. I want to make sure there are no dead-tree sources in the Bangladeshi language and/or in the local media before this is deleted. Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support deletion - Article on Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed is a complete hoax, possibley self promotional rubbish. It has no references nor sources and googling extensively for it gives no constructive results. I'd say: delete the article! J.B. (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very ashamed to say I missed something that convinces me this should be deleted. Please accept my apologies for wasting space on AFD.

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tone 11:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Tigris

Battle of the Tigris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there is no such battle, thus issues of notability come in here. There is one mention of a battle in 521 here [21] and there is at least one battle with that name a couple of thousand years later, but this is
talk) 10:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As well as being blatant OR, this article is also a POV fork from
Dougweller and I to stop adding this original research. Ariobarza believes that the Persian king Cyrus the Great fought a battle with the Babylonians at the Tigris river in February 539 BC. No reliable source makes this claim. You will not find any history of ancient Babylonia or Persia that talks of a "Battle of the Tigris" in 539 BC. (There was a "Battle of the Tigris" involving the Ottoman Turks in 1733 but that's not the same one, obviously.) Instead, Ariobarza is relying on his personal interpretation of an ancient Babylonian chronicle (see discussion at Talk:Battle of Opis#Another set of translations). See also the comments by Alvestrand [22], Dougweller [23] and Akhilleus [24] pointing out the original research and why it can't be included. It's unfortunate that Ariobarza has ignored all of us and decided to create this OR-based POV fork instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Is there enough info on the 1733 Battle of the Tigris to covert this article into one on that real subject? Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only information I have is that it was a battle between the Ottoman Turks and the Persians. I don't have enough for even a stub article, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless you people have an agenda, please explain why your in such a hurry to delete such a puny article, while other articles with NO text have been left alone for almost a year! I am updating the article everyday, but I guess it hasen't clicked up there you guys's heads. You people lack humanity and common sense, plus, are (for some reason) impatient. Going to be in denial until the bitter end I see, okay then...--Ariobarza (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment Point me towards the articles with no text and I'll see what I can do with them. Meanwhile, please don't use this as an opportunity to insult other editors. I've been trying my best to help you avoid such problems for many months now.
talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. What ChrisO said: there are no reliable sources that say a "Battle of the Tigris" occurred at this time between the Persians and Babylonians. Shall I change my username to "impatient Bratz doll" now? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got an idea, why don't you guys just delete the title! Your changing the subject, the subject is that, does this battle exist, NOT whether or not the title (currently searching) exists, there are lots of battles with no titles, the title is based on the sources it says direct qoute, On the (river) Tigris, furthermore, that corresponds to were Cyrus was invading from, Herodotus says he was delayed/ building stuff, and probable scrimish (attack/ battle) at the Gyndes river (todays Diyalas). Dougweller had let me use Siege of Pasargadae Hill for an untitled battle, BECAUSE the sources said it was a hill in Pasargadae that was besieged, so for certain extreme circumstances its okay to make titles, but the battle must and will and is under being sourced. I know your dying to taste the smell of deletion, but that must waist, so, come again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

But that battle took place in 521. It's not the battle the argument is about. And your 'corresponds' is, once again, OR. Your direct quote has nothing to do with the article, as I think I've demonstrated on the article's talk page. What I don't understand is how you can write an article about a battle without starting with a firm, unambiguous, reliable, verifiable source.
talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with Ariobarza's "research". Read the source that he links above; it says: "521:
Darius I ... in December, battle on the Tigris and capture of Babylon". In other words, a different ruler and a different battle, 18 years after the one Ariobarza is claiming. He simply hasn't bothered to read the source properly; a moment's care would have shown that it's nothing to do with the supposed battle of 539 BC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete until a source is found and verified independently. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, major battles are indeed notable, but only if they really exist or are fictional ones with good sources. Agree with all the impatient Bratz dolls that this is OR. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Give the article a chance to take shape before you jump on it to delete it. What is the rush to delete it? Why don't you bring up these concerns on the article's talk page and give him a chance to work it out. If after a while he can't pull it together, then go for a delete. What's the big deal to abort this before it even has a chance to come together?
talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The concerns have been brought up on the article's talk page, and Ariobarza has been unable to produce sources that says there was a "Battle of the Tigris" at this time. No sources, no article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possibility that it can "come together" because the topic is entirely fictitious and undocumented. You might just as well ask for sources that to confirm that "George W. Bush is a reptilian humanoid". -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: since when did we allow people to post apparently invented information here, and then give them weeks to come up with even one half-decent source that actually mentions the event at all, let alone any sources that mention it under this name or that give any details on what supposedly happened. At the risk of seeming rude, the editor who created this page appears to have a history of inventing his own narrative of historical events and creating pages to match it. And then becoming abusive when challenged on his lack of sources. I don't see what this adds to the project - WP is meant to be a (hopefully) reliable reference encyclopedia that collates known and verifiable information, not a sandbox for aspiring amateur historians or historical novelists to either promote or road test their own ideas. --
talk) 08:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I just started looking. This may not be the strongest source in the world but this battle seems to be mentioned here at Nationmaster under the Battles of Cyrus: [25]
talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Erm, that's just a version of the WP article on Cyrus, hosted on another site. What's the betting that Ariobarza added that info a while back? I mean come on, if this doesn't tell you where we are with this one I guess nothing will. In addition this highlights the problems with having poor info here - it gets repeated and circulated elsewhere. And eventually is the sort of thing that makes WP a laughing stock from time to time. Even if proper sources are out there somewhere (which seems unlikely), this whole thing is being done back to front - editors here shouldn't just dump stuff here which appears to come off the top of their heads, and then scrabble around googling for something to vaguely back it up. There's way too much of that here as it is. Usually it's a POV problem, but here it's about basic historical accuracy. --
talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong commentI am really get tired of your (some users) bogus statements about my history. I NEVER made up a battle article, I made two articles TITLEs, not the battle itself (except the Siege of Ecbatana, which some now agree it might have been a raid/ storm not a siege). Secondly, when joining Wikipedia I knew disputes like this would arise, because most historians have neglected to provide a conclusive book on Persian history (and this is fact when compared to how many Egyptian, Greek, Roman books have been published). One must do A LOT of research just to find one of their battles, because the sources for them are barely covered by historians, and when they are, they are vague. But even though the Feb battle (a nickname of Battle of the Tigris which I never said was exactly in February) it has no title (as the battle of Opis did not have a title, historians would later call it Battle of Opis). IT Does not mean the battle has no right to exist in Wikipedia. For example, please check out Siege of Eion, I could only find a couple sources on the siege (its possibly more scant that the Battle of Tigris), which is part of the Greco-Persian Wars. If you do not know already, this is part of a bigger issue (as ChrisO says), as one must analyze why Persian nationalists even exists. My theory is that historians have been very Greco-Roman centric, which has led Iranians/ Persians to reavaluate their history, and when they did, they became mad when they found out historians were neglecting it. This is my theory, your welcomed to make yours, when coming here I suggest any to user, should go to the Opis talk page and read further, as evidence for the battle is there, I suggest you do that before coming here and saying ill informed things.--Ariobarza (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The evidence at the Opis talk page is exactly the same as the evidence presented here and at the Tigris talk page: Attempts at synthesis from fragmentary ancient sources, and never giving a quote directly from a verifiable published source that supports the assertions. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The issue is quite simple here - it's about having reliable sources for information, per policies and guidelines on
talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And that of course is a prime example of
original research by synthesis - "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research." This really is a textbook case. Unfortunately Ariobarza simply doesn't seem to accept the fact that OR is prohibited. It's not just that he doesn't understand it, as it's been explained to him often enough - he simply rejects it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
HISTORY OF THIS MONTHS PAST EVENTSHypocracy at its best! This occurs when sources are listed (by ChrisO and other users on this page) for Battle of Opis that (historians) are NOT sure whether Cyrus slaughtered the Akkadians or the Akkadian army, or if there was even a slaughter at all. Then ChrisO wanted to push a POV that Cyrus did some sort of slaughtering, which is (
original research by synthesis), then from the others users pressure, he backs off. THEN he says Ariobarza can not do what he did, BEFORE Ariobarza has even attempted to update the Battle of the Tigris. Finally, (after a Opis talk page dispute, that ChrisO had enough of, and later ignored Ariobarza's solutions) ChrisO convinces others to delete the Battle of the Tigris. The end. Battle of Opis contains POV DISPUTES, OR, LACK OF VERIFIABLE TEXT, which is different from what the sources book actually says, and many other problems, why don't you guys go after that! Currently I am gathering THE sources for this battle on my talk page, so do not rush this.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply
]

Delete. As far as I know, there may well have been such a battle. However, the sources given in the article seem to be all or almost all primary sources. Original research is good, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. You can write up an article on the battle or possible battle and have it published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and then maybe a Wikipedia article can be written about it, citing the journal article. It's not necessary for the battle to have certainly existed or to be certainly fictional in order to have a Wikipedia article, but there must be sufficient secondary sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTThe problem is that there are secondary sources, that this did happen, some users just dont understand what IMPATIENT means, you'l all going to regret it, I can't say it more simply. And as far as
Original research is concerned, 99% of users forget to read the actual article to the end, which says, There is a thin line between NEW CLASSIFICATION and original research, which means if I make, through my original [research] (NOTICE, research is what we do on Wikipedia) a discovery, then it is okay, IF it is backed by sources, click on it, it is the original article, not the article titled, "No original reaserch". Period.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply
]

The page you're linking to is not the policy of course, which is what is relevant here. And you are so very wrong about the idea that WP editors should be looking to make "discoveries" of any sort. Quite apart from the unlikely prospect of a single WP editor suddenly, while seated at their PC/Mac and trawling through Google returns, coming across some radical and significant discovery that has eluded professional academic scholarship for decades, were you to have done so, it would still - as has been consistently pointed out - constitute original research and/or synthesis. And finally the impatience is all yours - you're the one who's rushed to create an unsourced and probably junk article without actually being aware of any sources that would back up the article or its contents. If you really wish to contribute here by making material up based on a hunch or a minor fragment of information, and only then Googling for any shred of evidence to support it in any substantive way days later, please do it in your sandbox. --
talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete - Le sigh. This is clearly
original research and as such must go. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentHow many times did I say Olmstead said Nabonidus was defeated on the Tigris in February-March, then a few lines later he say in October then Cyrus defeated him in Opis. It is therefore not a made up battle. And the users on this page are being fooled by ChrisO. PLEASE go to the Opis talk page I have listed most of the sources there, AND REMEMBER TO READ THE MESSAGES TO THE END. I am yelling this time, because I can't take it anymore. Thanks. And I am finding sources, so please do not comment here, it is waisting the time of my life, which will end the deletion of this article. I can't hold off two armies at once.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

How many times have you been asked to cite the specific page of the specific book by Olmstead that says that? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. --
Folantin (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I disagree that the name of the article is problematic, as many of the articles on Wikipedia about events current and historical have names cobbled together from consensus among editors rather than names attributed to specific sources. However, after reading the article, the article talk page,
synthesis and personal interpretations of what sources already exist. A ni Mate 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If there are secondary sources, provide in-line citations of them. These will be built on original sources, and will cite them precisely. Those should be cited too, again precisely. Nevertheless, this article seems to be a much less good duplicate of Battle of Opis - i.e. a poor article about precisely the same battle. If so, this article is obviously the one to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Battle of Opis was a completely separate and well-documented event which took place at Opis in northern Mesopotamia in September/October 539. Ariobarza is claiming that there was another, different battle near Uruk in southern Mesopotamia in February 539. But as already noted, there are no sources that say that. It's not a question of this being "a poor article about precisely the same battle" - it's a poor article about a different battle which no source says happened. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated Siege of Kapisa for deletion - by the same editor, and with the same problems. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--why can't author provide citations? That's indication enough of what's going on here. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment Before anyone reads the below, just know it is from the very first messages about this dispute, which in most cases NO ONE even bothered to read (from now before interfering in a dispute READ ALL THE MESSAGES TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BEFORE SAYING nonesense) and just accepted a misconception face first, please do not ride off the bottom evidence as my analyzations, or wishfull thinking/original research, which I suggest ignoring evidence is much worse than all of the above. Now, before looking down, remember to read this whole message as carefully as you can, thanks;

Firstly, I think (Kuhrt and Smith which have the MOST outdated tranlsations, as they are also coincidently the ones who mention the Sea Coutry fighting) are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org which gets its sources from translations that are not disputed, except the February battle that some think is disputed.
[Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.]
[large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]
[... Tigris. In the month of Addaru (February) the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.]
(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, common sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)
Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"
"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."
(Again, this line comes from Olmstead book, and the lacuna that some claim are large, are only a few words, then in Olmsteads translation it says Ba defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack. Also, more evidence a of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. But the inscriptions way above all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, this line of divine help comes from Olmstead and Rawlinson and others, please DO NOT forget to click on the external links here and then accuse me of not putting more sources. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon [Xenophon too talks of other minor battles in Babylon between Cyrus and Nabonidus BEFORE Cyrus got to Babylon itself] agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)
[Seventeenth year (539/538); Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he [lacuna]. The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [Âbu?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants.]
(Note firstly, NOW in this inscription we see that the words that I bolden which is about the Sea Country PROVES that the February event and the Sea Country invasion are almost a YEAR apart, so who invaded Babylon in 540 BC? Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it from the main page of Opis), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January of the year before?, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon [city]) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, while Cyrus planning took place 5 months before the actual march as said by Olmstead, Oppenheim, and even Rawlinson, which have other crucial information that later historians did not want to go into the translation, which then makes the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9-19 or about 14 months to be exact, 9+19= 28/2= 14, or again according to Olmstead before winter+9 months= 14 months.)
Conclusion;
In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. Secondly, you may ask well how come I know all this other info, well I do part time reseach because this subject is my especiality, and I am interested in studying it, which this whole time has given me more incite, so please do not say the lacuna (which is actually small), mAy say a fishing boat from sea land attacked Ishtar then Uruk killed Persia fought, DO NOT SAY such blashemy!, it is just laughable, and it makes me cry at this ridiculus rendering. To say the least its even a wrong original research, think of your rendering of the lacuna as INDIRECT OR, then I get accused of OR! I know this is a lot of info to review but just look at it step by step, then make a good long counter arguement, not one line criticisms. This is Olmsteads translation;
Here just shows you that 4 of the 6 translations agree with my assessment, plus now I FOUND that Grayson says it was likely Parsu, WHICH now means 5 or the 6 translations AGREE with my proposal to make a article for this battle;

Date Translator Text Source

1925 Smith "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..." Babylonian Historical Texts

1950 Oppenheim "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..." Ancient Near Eastern Texts

1960 Olmstead "B[...] was defeated. On the Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... [the ...] [after] the army of the Persians made an attack..." The History of the Persian Empire

1975 Grayson "... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ...the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..." Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles

2004 Glassner "[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s[...]." Mesopotamian Chronicles

2007 Kuhrt "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia (?) ...]" The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

Notice the [B WAS DEFEATED](No other country in and around the area had Ba in it, the only possiblity is that is was Ba-bylon it is an obscured word, BUT a B can be made of it, maybe the "Ba'bylonian' 'army' 'of' 'borders' was defeated" which is a possiblity (I say possiblity but I am not drawing any conclusions from it, because Olmstead and others already say it was Babylon), NOW the rest of the translation (with some fill ups that have marks that I have added BUT YOU COULD DISMISS THIS SENTENCE BECAUSE I AM SAYING OF HOW IT MIGHT HAVE POSSIBLY READ, WHICH IS OF COURSE ORIGINAL RESEARCH SO YOU ARE WELCOMED TO IGNORE THE NEXT SENTENCE, BUT IS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE facts that I will state under the sources, and Olmstead plainy states it happened, though you could ignore the below, its made from what Olmstead says, in March Nabonidus took the gods, Olmstead places the taking of the gods right AFTER the battle in February which is Addaru, so when I say February it is not original research as it even appears on the tablet ITSELF.)... "On the Tigris. In the month of Adarru the (image of the ) Ishtar of Uruk 'gets' 'taken' 'by' the 'mighty' 'king' 'Nabû' [after] the army of the Persians made an attack."
B was defeated/Someone was killed(according to other translations), after the Persians made an attack.
You see the Babylonians are talking like Yoda (when translating a obscured inscription, so this is just a joke, not OR, though the latter is true), backwards basically, they are saying the outcome of Persia's attack on the Tigris river in February.
The only question is who won the battle? The Babylonians, or the Persians, later Olmstead and Nabonidus inscription says Nabonidus evacuated all the Gods to somewhere else. So why would Nabonidus retreat from Cyrus? Unless of course he was defeated by Cyrus.
Sources;

The award-winnig website of Livius.org that includes disputed and undisputed translations. Scroll all the way down and read the tiny line just before the Battle of Opis.

As already cited, Olmsteads translation and text.

Check out ~Herodotus' and Xenophons' description of the Babylonian invasion.

The overall belief of MOST (who dared talked about this issue) historians, which my arguement is based on.

Rawlinsons outdated, but still uncontested and amazingly reliable book, which on page 68 says Cyrus restarted his march in spring, which is around Febraury to March, after being delayed at the Tigris for almost a year. And he says because he was making canals, and possibly there was a first battle between Cyrus and Nabonidus, all before the second battle at Opis. Here is the link, 1.

More sources, and more on the way;...

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] HERE Grayson's takes back his own translation of SEA LAND, and says that he was wrong, and it should be Persia, now 5 of 6 tranlsatios agree with me, that I THINK AN ARTICLE SHOULD EXIST FOR A BATTLE THAT HAS EXISTED.

Book with Page 77 states seventh day of Adar[31]

Conclusion; What is said above is what Rawlinson implies, Oppenheim suggests, and Olmstead actually says, and the other newer Translations even by the dreaded Grayson mentions Persian troops on the Tigris. What do you, or one would suppose Persian troops were doing in February 540-539 BC on the Tigris? Singing "Ring Around the Rosey?" Godspeed to all mankind!(THIS MESSAGE is from the Battle of Opis talk page which none of you bothered to even look at) thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Delete as original research. Ariobarza's comments were convincing in the opposite way that he intended. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs a modern source (in english) that says there was a battle and that the battle is known as "The Battle of Tigris". --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
original synthesis. I'll quote briefly: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." BusterD (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There does not seem to be any reliable sources for such a battle during Cyrus's reign. However there are four other battles with that name:

1) In the Behistun inscription, Darius appears to refer to such a battle in 521 BC against a rebellion in Babylon.[32]

2) Battle of the Tigris on June 26th, 363 AD, between the Romans led by Julian and the Sassanids. (Ref: The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, By George Rawlinson, Ch. X, p.191-223)

3) Battle of the Tigris in 1457 AD won by
Aq Quyunlu
principality. (Ref: Review by Ann K.S. Lambton, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol.41, No.1, pp.167-169, 1978.)

4) Battle of the Tigris on July 19, 1733 AD, between Ottomans and Persians. This second one is of course has been mentioned by other editors here. (Ref: E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 By Martijn Theodoor Houtsma, M. Th. Houtsma, p.812).
talk) 22:52, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in Romania

Agriculture in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A duplicate of Economy of Romania#Agriculture bdude (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, no, this is a sub-article of the
WP:PRESERVE, so deletion is not an option. --Pixelface (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note The majority of the information is already in Economy of Romania#Agriculture. --10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdude (talk • contribs)
It appears when Nergaal replaced the redirect present at Agriculture in Romania with text [33], it was a copy-paste from Economy of Romania#Agriculture (the first revision of Agriculture in Romania is identical to this version of Economy of Romania#Agriculture from November 21, 2007). The only text in this article that is not present in Economy of Romania is "Romania is also one of the world's largest suppliers of agricultural products, particularly of wheat and other grains. Romania is a major exporter of agricultural products, to the United States but also to Europe and East Asia." The Economy of Romania#Agriculture section does currently have more information. I think redirecting this to Economy of Romania#Agriculture would be the best thing to do now. If that section grows too large, it could be spunoff into Agriculture in Romania. --Pixelface (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article is getting too long, so material from the existing section should be condensed, rather than deleting the split-off. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia fields several other "Part of economy in Romania" articles and the section for Agriculture has grown sufficiently large to qualify a separate article.
DARTH PANDA^talk 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as Pixel mentions above, I meant to work on the economy article a long time ago, and the first step was to move information into separate articles. Unfortunately I was disappointed by the humongous amount of vandalism on the economy page so I stopped working on that page at all. As long as all the information from the subarticle is covered in the main article I am happy for it to be merged/redirected at least for now...
Nergaal (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep And let the main editors there sort out what to spin out. Certainly notable and sourceble.
-- Banjeboi 14:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep And trim
Taemyr (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Useful article, encyclopedic. Merging would be okay but it looks as if it may be too large and it's better to have a separate article.
talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A significant enough topic in itself that will be built on over the coming years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hard to believe that anyone would propose deleting an article about a nation's agriculture. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 31 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) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The John Francis

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

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough
reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just advertising for a non-notable musician with no sources.
talk) 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No real sign of notability, nor any evidence indicating such. Also, delete the various self-released/small-label albums attached to the article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:06, 30 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) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Lachlan (Martin)

Cory Lachlan (Martin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ATHLETE. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history of the article
ASP World Tour or one of the events in it, makes you notable unless everyone and their uncle can enter. Is there a surf wikiproject that can check this? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe I am reading the article incorrectly, but I read "competed as a junior at the Billabong Pro" as referring to the "various u/18 side-comps at many of the major tour stops" discussed later in the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many under 18 events are there at each tour stop and how many people compete in them? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mgm. It depends how many people qualify to participate in it. It's not just about numbers. I would personally think that making it to the highest sporting competition on any level makes someone notable. Magazine101 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the subject competed in the Billabong Pro, which, as stated before, requires considerable amounts of skill to qualify. Regardless of his age, this is a significant feat, worthy of notability. All professional surfers start somewhere, this is the beginning for him. This article should not be deleted. Magazine101 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magazine101 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about the numbers because if anyone can qualify, it's not remarkable. If, say, only the top 15 in the field can enter, I totally agree that he is note-worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it needs more than the fact he entered an event to make him notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer and football players are also notable when they play at top events regardless of whether they win. I don't see how a surfing event where there are limited qualification spots is any different. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence to suggest he meets the general requirements of
WP:ATHLETE) pass that test at least. Murtoa (talk) 11:17, 28 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) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Morgan

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

This is either a hoax or a biographical article of non-notable actress. Contrary to what is written in the article, IMDB lists the actress as performing a single unnamed role ("Girl walking") in a film currently under production. She does not appear in the credits of any of the films mentioned in the WP article. Zvika (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is either a hoax or an article for someone who performed as an extra (in other words, someone without a speaking part in any of the mentioned films). Neither situation requires an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If MySpace is any indicator of truth, this whole thing is a hoax.
DARTH PANDA^talk 11:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, not notable, even if true. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 28 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Jaffery

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

Notability and referenced tagged since June 2007. While others may have cited Jaffery's work, no one seems to have taken the time to write about Mr. Jaffery himself. There does not appear to be enough
reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 07:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. (see comment below) For academics and bibliographers, having your work cited is what makes you notable in your field. The fact he wrote those books is easy to check as are the birth and death dates. I see no reason to delete this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After DGG's comments I changed my !vote to a strong keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a reference to a brief article about Jaffery in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Peter Nicholls and John Clute. It also appears that at least one of his books is discussed in Michael Burgess's Reference Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror, though I don't have it (some info is visible in snippet view in Google Books). Mike Christie (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as baseball players are notable for playing baseball, writers are notable for writing. If all we have about a writer is biography and nothing about the writing, it's that sort of article that doesn't show notability. It is however necessary to show the books are notable. It is not number of publications alone that does it. In this case, they are mostly published by a major publisher in the field, and they are each held in over 100 libraries according to worldcat; between them, that's sufficient. . Further, and this is important in any field, there's an entry for him in a standard encyclopedia--though I'd like page numbers there. DGG (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took the Nicholls/Clute entry from a CD version of the encyclopedia, which is why there's no page number. I can add the page number this coming weekend, when I get back to the place where my print copy is. Mike Christie (talk) 21:29, 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 no consensus. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Atif

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

Not notable. At best content should be merged to
Anti-Terrorism Court in Pakistan. Tazmaniacs (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami per notability. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy attempted to assassinate the president of the world's 6th most populous country. Would we even consider for a second deleting
Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

See
WP:NOTE: I'm not sure this guy has significant coverage. I'm not sure all those who tried to assassinate Pervez Musharraf deserve an article, since very litte is known on them. We don't even know what is Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami: has the name being used in other occurences? Or is it only a front for some other organisation? If you find sources highlighting the importance of this assassin, or giving more info than this stub which seemingly will remains a stub, we should probably reconsider a merge into Harkat ul-Mujahideen. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:24, 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:02, 23 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, kur ykh 07:39, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Kirk Grimes

Jackson Kirk Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Grimes is "running" for President in the US but is not registered with the
Chick Bowen 04:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (no decision yet). From my initial search on Jack Grimes, his press coverage comes from A) his perennial runs for office or B) the Wilkes-Barre, Penn. area press. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (also no decision yet) The fact that a presidential candidate has "no chance" is not conclusive as to notability. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested otherwise. My point is that the coverage includes him in lists of others; a candidate like
Chick Bowen 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 21:52, 24 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, kur ykh 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Not every attention seeking crackpot should get an article, especially when the press coverage of said person is lacking. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 01:55, 28 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. At least after the rewrite. Sandstein 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion ratio

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

Notability and referenced tagged since June 2007. Expansion ratio is used in a variety of disciplines to mean different things. See Wikipedia search. The scope of expansion ratio does not lend itself to being covered in a single article. -- Suntag ☼ 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Expansion. I see no notability issues here. I frankly fail to see how a chemistry could be non-notable. I do see a dictionary definition and something that is unreferenced. People should be able to look up ratio and expansion separately and draw their conclusions accordingly - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rewrite of the article, in its new form keep, i think that in every field the expansion ratio can fill an own specific article, once we have two fields, we can make a DP, for this one, its cryogenic liquid specific. Mion (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the title doesn't fully match the content, please consider renaming before the second article is written to pre-empt a dab. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Expansion ratio (cryogenics) would be an option, but with no second article present there is no reason for it, but if you think it should be done now, so do it. Mion (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new version is more than a dictionary definition. If the same term is used with a different meaning in other disciplines, a disambiguation page may be useful, but that's a separate question. --Itub (talk) 11:37, 28 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) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 2050

List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 2050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These are estimates from Goldman Sachs as to what GDP will be forty years from now. This totally fails
WP:CRYSTAL is the biggest problem by far. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - interesting but
WP:CRYSTAL is definitely a huge problem. There are a whole heap of assumptions here - including the ongoing existence of these countries as the entities they currently are. With the volatility of borders in the recent past, I would have thought it safer to predict change in the next 42 years rather than no change. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I entirely agree with the nominator's reasoning. Anything prediction passed the 2018 is subject to too many variables to be reliable or useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not entirely sure how much CRYSTAL there is in this (the speculation is at least sourced), but Wikipedia is not in the business of mindlessly reproducing estimates from a single entity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I'm tempted to call this the epitome of CRYSTAL I'll concede since it is sourced it doesn't fall into that category. Nonetheless this is still awfully speculative and is offered with zero context and it comes from only one source. Also, one wonders if the Goldman Sachs report is considered in any way accurate given current changes in the markets - just this morning Japan's stock market dropped to its 1982 levels. Maybe merge with the article on Goldman Sachs, but I see no viability as an independent article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2050 is too far in the future to be able to predict something like this. I could see adding a blurb to the Goldman Sachs article about them making the report and including a link to it, though. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it does not merit its own article. This list is already reproduced in the BRIC article. Therefore, it is unnecessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are other places in the encyclopedia where this may be included. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... strong delete. Even more than the crystal ball thing, I'm tempted to call this a hopeless POV case since it so strongly privileges the predictions of Goldman-Sachs. Fumoses (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this
snowing. Cliff smith ^talk 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per
neuro^(talk) 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — They forgot to factor in when alien whales from Neptune invade Earth in 2037, destroying 1/3 of Earth's people in the process before being taken out by the nukes Russia will have hidden for such a long time ago. At least, that is according to my
MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per
(talk) 22:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What?? Wikipedia to be speedy deleted by an asteroid?
MuZemike (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Technically, yes. Heh,
(talk) 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:CRYSTAL oh my gosh JBsupreme (talk) 02:13, 28 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) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New England Artist

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

Appears to be a dictdef and OR--page attempts to define who qualifies as a New England artist. Might be worth having as List of New England artists instead. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like a relative official definition, but without a list of example artists, it's no more than a short definition
and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Delete per nom -- the page is not well defined. The idea of having a List of New England artists instead is a good one, if somebody's interested in building one. --Lockley (talk) 19:43, 31 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 speedily deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brokencyde (band)

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

Page is the same as
WP:MUSIC Phlyght (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles about this band have been subject to repeated recreation throughout 2008. I've speedied the other article and will follow up by deleting this one too. In the future, you can tag copies of a speedy nominee for speedy too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Hui Chung Chen

Wen Hui Chung Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough
reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 07:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the textbook Elementary Chinese Reader and Grammar they authored was widely used, they pass WP:PROF on that count. The United States Air Force publications appear to have been intended as textbooks for members of the U.S. military, so that's another pass of WP:PROF. Theodore Chen appears to have served briefly as president of Fukien University. Could someone add their Chinese names to the article, and add an interwiki link to the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia, if there is one? -- Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep on the basis of the university presidency of what is now Fujian Normal University, an important university with international presence. There is probably information on this is appropriate printed Chinese language sources. I see no practical way of showing whether a 1940s period textbook was or was not widely us--it is presently in 28 WorldCat libraries, but since few libraries keep older textbooks in stock, that doesn't show much of anything one way or another. Incidentally,for searching, the Library of Congress form of the name is "Chén Wen-hui (Chung)" I do not see it in characters. There are almost no WorldCat holdings for the pamphlets, & the only other publication listed is her PhD thesis [34] .DGG (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken regarding the university presidency. According to the article's text, it was not she but her husband was was (about to be) appointed to that post:"Mr. Chen had been asked to become the president of Fukien University". Nsk92 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, see below. Thanks for catching it---I read too rapidly. DGG (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her husband Theodore Chen appears to have been a notable academic but there is too little evidence of academic notability of Mrs Chen herself. According to the article's text, the highest academic post she had ever held was that of a university lecturer (a non-tenured position) at University of Southern California, while her husband had been a department chair and (although the record is not very clear) had also briefly been a university president at Fukien University. The only academic publications of Mrs Chen are joint with her husband. Sorry, but in a situation like this I would want to see some evidence of independent academic notability for passing
WP:NOTINHERITED principle is applicable here. I think that the correct thing to do here is to create a new article for Theodore Chen and include some information about Mrs Chen there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete I spent some time trying to save this article, going to the extent of contacting the family. I would agree that her husband is probably more notable; for instance, I think he had some part in founding the national fraternity that she spoke to. She does have some academic publications on her own, but just articles (some of which were reprinted in the Air Force pamphlets). I think she deserves a solid mention in her husband's article, but not her own article. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My error aboutthe Presidency, and there is not enough information otherwise. Her husband, on the other hand, should have an article & she could be mentioned there with a redirect/. DGG (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Nsk92 & DGG, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:34, 1 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 redirect to History of Celtic F.C.. Sandstein 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic: The Irish Connection

Celtic: The Irish Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough
reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 06:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the standards of
Talk) 07:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Celtic F.C.. It doesn't appear notable enough for its own entry, but a mention in this article is certainly relevant and suitable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect, as per Mgm. Giant Snowman 14:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't merge to any Celtic F.C. article, just plain not-notable. Camillus 20:37, 30 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. Nobody here is really convinced that this researcher is notable. Sandstein 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cordopatis

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

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough
reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Suntag, it would really help if you indicted in these nominations something specific about the subject--at least what the field of claimed notability is-- so people would know if they thought they could usefully comment. In this case, he's a science researcher, & I will, but I might well have passed this over because most of your noms are for people in fields I know nothing about. This also lets people do easier deletion sorting for the various workgroups. DGG (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep (see below), As it currently stands, the article is rather a mess – it's mostly a list of positions he's held and says that he makes his own wine. There's little assertion of notability, except to say that he's a professor and chair of an academic department (suggestive, but not corfirmatory of notability). However, a Web of Science search on "Author=(Cordopatis P*) AND Document Type=(ARTICLE) AND Institutions=(UNIV PATRAS)" turns up 62 journal articles with about the top 5 being cited by other articles more than 30 times. (I checked these top 5 manually and all list the u patras dept of pharmacology, suggesting they're not false positives). This is much stronger support for the subject's notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Résumé. No independent sources. Narayanese (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do not appear to be any independent
notability on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Although citation counting is a common and accepted way of establishing notability for academics (both on and off wiki), I think that 5 articles with 30 citations is nothing out of the ordinary for someone working in pharmacology (if anything, it's rather low). Fails
WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I urge commentators not to confuse the quality of the article (which we all agree is quite poor at the moment) with the notability of the subject. The former can be fixed, while only the latter determines whether the article itself should remain. It is patently false to say there are no sources. The scientific literature satisfies all requirements of independence and reliability and the subject appears to have >60 articles. Consequently, as Crusio notes above, the question boils down to whether this individual's documented body of contributions is notable enough for his inclusion, which is a "judgment call" in this case. Evidently, none of us are experts in this field, so it would be great if someone closer to the discipline could weigh-in. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I work in behavioral neuroscience, which is rather close to pharmacology. 30 citations, as far as I can see, is just average, nothing more. Only 5 out of 60 articles getting even that many seems to indicate that the other articles do not really add much to notability. The number of articles is not very indicative of notability. I have not checked the record (I base myself upon the apparently careful counting of Agricola44 above), but there exist a lot of local medical and pharmacological journals (that still are included in Web of Science and such) in which it is not too difficult to publish a large number of papers that subsequently are not or seldomly cited. I would expect to see a coupl of papers with more than (at least) a 100 citations before I start thinking about notability for a pharmacologist. --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. The top article (EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY 30(12), 3411-3421 DEC 2000) has 65 citations, while the 2nd (JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY 157(7), 3039-3045 OCT 1996) has 53. So, these would seem to fall below the notability threshold you describe. As one who admittedly does not work in this field, these still seem like very impressive numbers to me. However, I'll downgrade my recommendation above to "weak keep". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have had a chance now to look at WoS myself. I took all publications by "Cordopatis P*", so there is a possibility that I overestimate his impact. Even disregarding that, I only get a total of 654 citations for 133 papers, with an h index of 13. For someone who has been active in pharmacology for 30-odd years, this is decidedly unimpressive, I'm afraid. --Crusio (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep. He could meet academic/professor criterion if there were more citations to his work. I did a search for his articles in Academic Search Complete, which indexes journals in his field. Got 19 entries, in various related areas, and with ZERO citations. The order of authorship in those articles suggests that he is a good manager of reserchers, but not necessarily the one behind the key ideas in the articles.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Search Complete, though excellent in its way, is an undergraduate oriented index, that does not work for topics in the field of science, where it indexes almost none of the specialty journals, and in particular not in this subject field. Using it as a citation index is particularly unreliable--it gets only those papers in journals indexed there that happen to be cited in journals indexed there. In the absence of the actual reliable citation indexes, Wos and Scopus, one can always use Google Scholar. DGG (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Search Complete, like many full text databases that are indepedent from any publisher, is selective in the journals it carries. As such, it is a good additional data point. It carries various journals in the authors' field. But your point is well taken, and 19 entries (not a low number) there at least suggests that the reviewers of those journals were convinced. I am changing my delete to a weak keep. Not a keep because not enough evidence of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (criterion #1). Should be enough for a non-consensus and default keep anyway.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I disagree with you on several points. First, ASO clearly is much less complete than WoS or Scopus or Google. Compare the citation data found by my WoS search above and the fact that not a single citation came up in ASO. Second, you seem to argue above that the fact that refereed journals published 19 of his papers is somehow indicative of notability. As
WP:PROF argues, however, publishing is what academics do. Having published does not make someone notable, only if those publications have a measureable impact. For academics we look for that (among other things) to citations. For a novelist, that would be book reviews in reputable sources. Even a novelist who would have published 19 novels would not get an article if none of those books would ever have been reviewed. 19 articles is absolutely not impressive. WoS comes with 133 entries, but many of those are abstracts and conference proceedings (in computer science those are very important, in life sciences they are almost completely forgettable). The fact that all his articles do not get cited more than a paltry 654 times indicates low if any notability. Don't let the "654" falsely impress you either. Many of those citations will be in the style where some author says something like "previously, Jones 1999, Smith 2001, Crusio 1830, and Yurken 2006 also studied this question, but we added some significant modifications to this study" and that may be the last you'll see in that particular article. So many citations are basically meaningless. For that reason, only a large amount of citations will indicate that someone has impacted her/his field in a significant way and, hence, notability. --Crusio (talk) 15:59, 1 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 as confirmed hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda-Weehawken Tunnel

Alameda-Weehawken Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an obvious hoax; [35] and [36] prove it beyond any doubt. NE2 06:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ugh, and someone actually bothered setting up a whole blog entry for this nonsense? Let's just say that if there really were a transcontinental tunnel across America, it would be in just about every world record book. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds hoaxy but you haven't got me convinced with those photos yet. How can you possibly determine which of those photos show the real name? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the "Alameda Tunnel" photo and immediately thought "where have I seen this portal before?" There should be enough at [37] to convince you. --NE2 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (
MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note —
MuZemike (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

G3 can work, but not A7 which does not apply to objects--just people, groups, and web content. DGG (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Changing to G3.
MuZemike (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as hoax. Neil916 (Talk) 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not the best hoax I have seen, but pretty darn good :) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:41, 28 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 per
WP:SNOW. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Universal Soldier III: A New Beginning (2009 film)

Universal Soldier III: A New Beginning (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails
Crystal. No reliable source is added. SkyWalker (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. Film is in "pre-production" with a rumored cast and a rumored director. Whether this film project really alive is a rumor too. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:SNOW because of the redlinks, random made-up info (Mark Damon has no mention of this movie, and the runtime is dubbed 'N/A') and formatting errors). - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a clear violation of
WP:CRYSTAL especially when the article about the preceding existing film has yet to be created. Nothing but rumors, no verifiable info to include yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article about the preceding novie DOES exist:
WP:Crystal Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above:
rumors and speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
neuro^(talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
(talk) 22:43, 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 no consensus. But all these external links need to go, as we are indeed not a web directory. Sandstein 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Catholic Churches

List of Old Catholic Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a list of individual congregations, but rather of national denominations that make up the Old Catholic community. An annotated list such as this one, separated into useful groupings, is easier to understand than a category, especially when some of the denominations do not have their own articles. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This list may not be of high quality, but it is something that somebody might want to look up. That said, I'd like for there to not be external links, but rather links to actual articles. ~~On a related note, I'm not sure what is meant by "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - this doesn't appear to me as a dictionary definition of any sort.~~ But I do think the list could be improved, especially the header, which doesn't sufficiently explain the subject.
Talk) 07:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: the word used was "directory", not "dictionary". - Fayenatic (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't notice that before. :)
Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This may be useful, but the directory comment is not void. This article is ripe with external links rather than internal ones and the part I read is not exactly helpful in determining what I'm looking at. If this is kept. It should undergo some serious work or face deletion again. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm concerned about it lacking sources, which is not necessarily a reason to delete, but it almost looks like an
WP:RESCUE? Frank  |  talk 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the subject seems interesting and notable, even if the article itself currently needs substantial cleanup. Fumoses (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Springnuts (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; I have rewritten the lead paragraph with a brief intro to provide context. However, the list needs trimming. At present it is a mixture of both provinces/dioceses (etc) and individual local parishes. I suspect that generally the
WP:N should be kept. Trim it to a list of national bodies, dioceses, and any notable local congregations/church buildings. That would be more encyclopedic and less a directory. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - provided there is substantial cleanup.
(talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: This list is useful for anyone interested in the Old Catholic tradition. Possibly needs changing to a category rather than an article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important list about a notable, verifiable historical subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the main object in hqaving lists of this kind is to idnetify articles on notable subject that are missing. However this is actually a list of churches with external links. If it was a list of WP articles, converting to a category would be useful. At present the category would be nearly empty. The consensus is that most churches are not notable (though I often advocate merging them with the village or twon where they are, rather than deleting them). I see nothing to indicate that any of the external links concerns a notable church, but only notable churches require articles. Are the links derived from a denominational website? If so the answer is to make sure that the main webpage appears as a prominent external link in an article on the denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a directory for one thing, for the other, all items on the list notable enough to merit a separate article can be found through a category. Therefore, redundant. A cleanup does not help here. --Tone 11:37, 1 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. Completely unsourced, possibly a hoax. No prejudice against recreation, but I and several others cannot find any sources to support this subject. Frank  |  talk 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Dougie

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

No Google hit or sources. At the least it fails
verifiability
and at the most it's a hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails verifiability as per nom, if the author can add some verifiable sources that would help--Daviddavey (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails
WP:HOAX until further supply of verification from original contributor. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete ASAP. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT criteria. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:V and looks like a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I have found no evidence this group exists and if
Oscar Elías Biscet is Douglas' cell mate, how come Biscet's article makes no mention of him. If we decide to cover this, it should be about the person instead of the group. Right now it is not verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 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 Merge. Fails
EBSCOhost
looking for information on borg nanoprobes, unfortunately I was unable to find any good sources which were not already brought up).
The issue is not whether reliable, secondary sources exist for the topic (as has been shown below, they do), but whether these mentions are anything beyond trivial or mentions such as explanatory text. Here, nanoprobes fall short. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Merging, articles that are not otherwise notable can be folded into a parent article, so a good location for this information would be Borg. Users below also brought up a combination of nanoprobes in the fictional context with Nanoprobe (device); either method is up to editor discretion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoprobe (Star Trek)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nanoprobe (Star Trek)

Articles for deletion/Nanoprobe (Star Trek) (2nd nomination)

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

2+ months after no-consensus AfD, article is still unsourced summary of non-notable plot device. First and third source identified in previous AfD make passing reference to Star Trek's use of "nanoprobe"s, second source uses the term but with no connection to Trek (and no effort since AfD to bring the article into line with
WP:GNG) -- insufficient to establish notability or sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article has references. - Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr...for all its plot summary, the article cites only a single episodic source; the rest, even just regurgitating plot points, lacks any sort of indication from what episodes or books the claims come from. And there are no references or even vague allusions to any third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Keep - what this article needs is sources, not deletion. Here are a few news sources mentioning Star Trek. Not only that, there are a host of news hits in reliable sources that talk about the real nanoprobe work being done here in our universe and in our time, not just a fictional future. These can be mentioned in the Star Trek article, and included in the Nanoprobe (device) article, which could also use some expansion. It should be a small matter to do a search for reliable in-universe hits on the web; here's a start. Frank  |  talk 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frank  |  talk 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Three of your sources make only superfluous, passing reference to the topic; none of them offer anything approximating substantiation of the topic's notability. (For those who can't/don't access the mildly-protected "academic" article, the single reference to nanoprobes is the incisive, "On Star Trek, the Borg collective fills their drones with nanoprobes so that everyone is linked together"). The fourth reference is a shoddy review of a book, and the reviewer's own musings in his final paragraph don't mention "nano"anything. Really, none of these do anything to establish notability. And while the Google News hit for "nanoprobe" certainly does yield lots of results -- why wouldn't it? unlike, say, "tricobalt device", it's a perfectly plausible real-world term -- appending the critical franchise limiting "star trek" to the search field yields far fewer. And while some more-nerdy-than-others news writers have said, "Hey, this thing in a lab reminds me of last week's Star Trek technobabble!", there's still nothing here to push this topic over the
WP:GNG hurdle. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

we now look at the quality of the reviews? I though we looked to see if there were sources with substantial coverage, even if we thought the reviewer did a bad job of it. DGG (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do. The purpose here is to use reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. It is not to have an article on everything and then grab at anything with the text string on the title in it as dressing around the edges. WP:N asks for some indication that significant coverage of this subject has been published from independent sources. It is well within the purview of editors to note that some mentions might not be significant (which he did here). Protonk (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the "more-nerdy-than-others news writers" make reference to Star Trek, and that multiple independent sources also directly reference Star Trek when writing about nanoprobes, is enough to establish general notability. The fact that the term "nanoprobe" is well enough known in American society is due in no small part to people hearing it on
WP:OSE list that could naturally be inserted here, it is nevertheless relevant and on-point to note that there are plenty of other things from the Star Trek universe that are well known in our real-world culture (and which have articles here). This one is at least as notable and probably more so than any of them, because it also happens to refer to something real. In addition, this is a term that is widely known specifically to Star Trek fans, like, for example, a warp drive. While it is probably so that both warp drives and nanoprobes exist in other science fiction universes, it is clear from the quantity of references specifically to Star Trek when writing about nanoprobes - real or imagined - that this reference is notable. People should be able to read about both when searching for the term "nanoprobe" here. Frank  |  talk 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can substantiate the claim that nanoprobes have had some palpable impact on science, rather than just served as an allusion in coverage, then I'll withdraw the nomination. I'd also endorse some editor boldly moving this article to Nanoprobe to merge its content with Nanoprobe (device), which is also uncited and badly in need of revision. --EEMIV (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sources above are pretty thin. However, Some might crop op, it isn't outside the realm of possibility. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Borg, and dab 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a fairly central plot element with significant profile in a highly notable series. I am sure there will be media-related periodicals which have information. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's entirely in-universe plot summary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article doesn't have to be brought "in line" with
WP:GNG since those are not policies. Nanoprobes are a notable Star Trek device. This article survived AFD two months ago, and another nomination for deletion so soon after is uncalled for. --Pixelface (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Upmerge or delete Mostly unsourced plot summary/description that can be covered in a mother article until it qualifies for a spinout. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Last Afd was two months ago and nom, bless them, deleted the article by way of a redirect without any discussion of merge or delete that I could see. So obviously this was the next step. A quick review of the last AfD - link above - indicated that nanoprobes has indeed transcended the notability threshold so when AfD is currently clocking in at 3000+ plus AfD'd articles - sadly that's not a typo - I would think a reasonable course would be to avoid AfDing, at least for a bit, and work toward article consensus which we had two months ago - to leave it for further development. We aren't in a rush here so give it a bit - is there something that is malicious, falsified, misleading, a liability? Those are concerns for trimming and clean-up as well - not deletion.
-- Banjeboi 12:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I strongly encourage editors to review the prior AfD on this article.
-- Banjeboi 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable bit of technology used frequently in a major franchise, which in turn has potential real-world ties to nanotech development. 23skidoo (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources (even those mentioned above, which are trivial) to demonstrate notability. gnfnrf (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the naysayers need more sources to establish independent coverage in ~~multiple~~ numerous sources. Yes, I've included some pretty thin sources, but there are a bunch of them. Yes, that smacks of
WP:ILIKEIT but that's not my point: the point is these things are all over the place. They are a part of pop culture, and the web hits demonstrate that. The news hits support it. The real-world technology corroborates it by crossing it over from fiction to fact. And - I still haven't even looked at the old AfD, which apparently has more support for keeping this article. Frank  |  talk 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, these are mostly wikis and fan sites. And as I wrote above, if someone wants to squeeze
the subject of significant coverage by multiple third-party sources simply isn't supported by any of the assorted links, individually or in whole, pasted here or in the old AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I can support a merge, removing the dab page and combining the two as Nanoprobe. Frank  |  talk 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Borg Nanoprobes are discussed entirely within the context of Borg, once that context explanation is removed, this article is really only a few sentences. Whether or not it meets the GNG, the potential for this article to expand is minuscule. -Verdatum (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as page has no evidence of receiving significant coverage in
=/\= | 20:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment They have yet to be introduced but certainly exist:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=ct20020822112331465S5262447&set_id=1

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220578.200-is-there-anybody-out-there-.html

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/252558

Google books has 40+

Per AfD if an article can be cleaned up through regular editing it isn't a good candidate for deletion.
-- Banjeboi 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep per everyone.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:23, 1 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. Sandstein 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seed Herbarium Image Project

Seed Herbarium Image Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by anonymous user (see article talkpage). Original PROD rationale was "wikipedia is not a webhost, gallery, or similar. Press releases and self-published sources are not reliable 3rd party sources". I've found nothing since to support notability nor verfiability so have to add those to my original reasoning. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Arnold Arboretum. It is one of their projects. Merge should trim the material appropriately, especially the image gallery aspect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 15 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major project of international significance. The illustrations are representative only--the purpose is not to show the gallery, but to appropriately indicate the information available at the resources. appropriate description. DGG (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I want to simply keep it or merge it. at any rate, deletion should not happen. The images all appear copyvios according to the commons and so they will be deleted, removing the gallery aspect of the entry. Since the Arboretum is notable, covering this project in its article would not require a separate proof of notability for the project or an independant one at that. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 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 No consensus; default to keep - this article has been floating around AfD for quite some time (at least 15 days) and has been relisted 3 times. I think its time to close this discussion.
^Pounce! 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Mr Fables

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

No sources found. Unsourced since 12/07. No notability asserted besides a long run in Grand Rapids. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I found [41] which takes about their trademark, this article [42] that talks about the breakup, many, many references in passing, and dozens of people trying to locate their old recipes. While I can't find a dead-on source, I get the feeling that this was an insanely popular chain that went of biz for some reason or another. I hate to see the article go without more confidence that they are really not notable (not the nom's fault). It went out of business before the Internet became popular, which may explain why sources are hard to find, excepting the fans of the food looking for the recipes and such. This is just one of those articles that I feel there IS something missing, and we just dont have easy access to the information, thus I will just stay neutral after searching.
TALK) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 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, treelo _radda 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up After searching Google news using all dates for "Mr. Fables" food I found some weak references that might pan out if I felt like spending money to see. NewsPaperArchive.com claims to have 32 articles for instance. Being verifiable only by pay ads should never stop an article from being considered sourced (policy doesn't say sourced for free) BUT I can't say that there are solid wp:rs behind that pay wall. I would lean more toward keep on faith, but I can't image sourcing this now out of business company will be easier in the future. Again, my gut says they ARE notable enough but they were preinternet, and I can't figure out how to satisfy policy in this. I tried, but have to stay neutral. Thats a lot of work to not take a stand...
TALK) 01:19, 17 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, kur ykh 07:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's going to be a little harder to find cites on articles like these because the chain went under in the previous decade, when there wasn't as much internet coverage, but this shouldn't make it impossible to find sources, and it doesn't make it non-notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:29, 21 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return the Favor

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

Turnin' Me On (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both sides of a double-a-side single—non-charting, very little media coverage. Prods on both articles were removed without comment. Both fail
WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently "Turnin' Me On" was not released as planned—as yet only "Return the Favor" is available via Amazon or iTunes as a single track. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Return the Favor," -seeing as it's the single, with a video- and delete "Turnin' Me Off." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSX-2007 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 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) 00:34, 16 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, kur ykh 07:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect both to the album these singles are from. This small info fits quite well in the parent article `'Míkka >t 08:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Turnin' Me On" as it seems to have been cancelled and keep "Return The Favor", the song hasn't even been released to radio yet and the music video has just been completed, give it a chance, there are plenty of other less successful singles on wikipedia that remain, why not this one? - mos-def (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Seeing as the video for RTF just premiered on BET, I saw keep it, delete TMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.27.141 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The official video of the song on Yahoo! Music: http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/KeriHilson/Return-The-Favor--202141633;_ylt=AvAwjerSeUbk_ykc6ftLtTA1wSUv —Preceding
talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the page, "Return The Favor" IT IS a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.177.210 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither being released as a single nor having a music video impart notability. See
WP:MUSIC#Songs for details. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
But it being released on a major label does (
Interscope is a major label, isn't it?). And Hello, Control, I don't understand why you're acting like a prude here; I had a Be bold attitude when I first came on, but ever since your standards for notability kept changing, I am now at a point where I am now afraid to contribute. In a nutshell, Strong Keep, like it would be when I first joined. Tom Danson (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
They're not my "prudish" standards, they're Wikipedia's standards. And they've pretty much been the same the entire time I've been here, and there's nothing in
WP:MUSIC about major label singles being automatically notable. I'm sorry if you feel that I've scared you off, I can't imagine how I could've done that—I don't recall having bumped into you before. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not speaking to only you specifically, but to every editor who insists on following the letter over the spirit of the rules. Because I want to improve everyone's experience of Wikipedia, I choose to pull the Ignore all rules policy card. Tom Danson (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Turnin' Me On" as it is a canceled single. Redirect "Return the Favor" as it is a single, but isn't notable yet.
^(Boo!) 20:03, 26 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes
WP:CRYSTAL detected in the article. VG ☎ 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Question. Has everybody forgotten that [Wikipedia is not paper]? Tom Danson (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:39, 30 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 Redirected to TV series for now. Could be expanded to a separate article later, should the need arise. But not yet. --Tone 11:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinehearst Industries

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

Fails notability outside the show. Just introduced a week ago in the show. Prod with concern "This article mainly uses information from a future that most likely will not come to be. It is not significant enough at this point. " was rejected by anonymous IP. Magioladitis (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:FICT. Otherwise, redirect to Heroes (TV series). Dekisugi (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete - not enough information at this point. Should be added to mythology section, if anything. Ophois (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is an important part of explaining the complicated Heroes plot. Although the article needs much improvement, it should be kept. --
talk) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Heroes is on the TV for 3 years. This company was just mentioned.
WP:RECENTISM. -- nips (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Since Pinehearst is the new major faction in addition to The Company in the Heroes universe I think it's safe to assume they'll be around for a while. --
talk) 13:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's speculation to say that it is a major faction now, seeing as it's only been in a couple of episodes. Any information about the future version will probably not come to pass. Ophois (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important part of Heroes storyarcs, should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zisimos (talk • contribs)

Redirect to
original research.B.Wind (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it, new part of heroes. -Vanessa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.72.210 (talk) 21:50, 26 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep once they've appeared in several episodes, and knowing the structure of such series, it is clear enough that they;ll l have a major role. There's a difference between looking in crystal ball and keeping your eyes open for what lies in front of you. DGG (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The articles on Heroes are already too long for us to be able to merge effectively. Didn't Heroes Unmasked say something about this organization being highly relevant to the season? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The elements of this article are: A leading paragraph which mixes reality and fiction, an episode observation on a card given from a character to another (this lasts some seconds!) that gives us a second paragraph with the fictional address and the fictional phone number of the company (useful?) and a section with "known members" (of course "known" as of the last episode shown in the TV! Goodbye
WP:FICTION!) A google search gives only plot summaries from the last Heroes episodes shown in the TV. The company first appeared in season 3 in episode 5 from the 6 shown so far i.e. it was mentioned only twice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I removed the "Known members" section for the reason given above. Who is known depends on the episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is an obscure aspect of the show's universe. I don't see any critical discussion of this plot element. The article consists entirely of plot bits from a few episodes, and it's only two paragraph-long. Since a redirect preserves the history for everyone, this article can be enhanced later if this fictional organization becomes notable by Wikipedia standards. VG ☎ 11:42, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murty Bvns

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

Autobiographical article with limited indication of notability. Not quite a
WP:BIO. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Complete lack of ghits and not a single source seems to be independent of Murty. While "he started training people in Virtual working otherwise known as Telecommuting" can be viewed as notability, it is unsourced and seemingly fails
DARTH PANDA^talk 04:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Ad disguised as biography. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlterGalaxy

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

Unremarkable filesharing software. ~20 ghits, no reliable sources to establish notability. Notability tag removed from article by creator without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A1). Article does not provide enough information to distinguish this from other filesharing software. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable third party sources or doom. Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Does not provide context establishing notability.
talk) 11:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No notability is evident, nor are there reliable sources to establish it that I can find. I don't think it meets the Speedy criteria, since it provides some context to specify what the subject is (though that's only an external link to this software's page). It's software, not web-based content that would meet criteria
A7, so that doesn't work either. Should still be deleted, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable software.
talk) 12:48, 28 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 redirect to Saw V#Sequel and protect the re-direct. While I don't think anyone involved in this discussion would deliberately override the re-direct, others are in a rush to re-create this. No objection to unsalting once filming has begun. TravellingCari 23:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Saw VI

Articles for deletion/Saw VII

Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination)

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

Explicitly fails
future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to demonstrate that filming has already begun (as per NFF), but given that the last AfD had to both delete and protect due to failure of editors to comply, I'd recommend reinstituting those measures, especially in light of extra interest due to the release of Saw V. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:CSD G4 (if possible). Why was protection lifted from this page? PC78 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I had protection lifted from it so we could redirect to Saw V#Sequel. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A G4 deletion is not possible, as this has some sourcing and NFF wasn't discussed last time.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is indeed possible unless this version of the article differs significantly from the last one; sources and arguments made in the last AfD are neither here nor there. If this is indeed a valid redirect, fine, then the obvious solution is to redirect and protect. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saw V#Sequel. Once protection was lifted for this article, it redirected. People kept changing the redirect to an article, so I attempted to find sources to back it up. I did the best I could, but I guess it's just too early. Still, there's no reason to resalt this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a bit on the fence about re-salting myself, but perhaps semi-protecting the redirect for the next week or two may be in order? It's not inconceivable that there would be multiple attempts at article re-creation by over-zealous fans. Suffice it to say, if this is deleted or redirected and is quickly recreated, I'm going to heavily argue for a salting if this goes to a 3rd AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that a delete and salting just seems excessive. It's clear that the movie is going to happen - there's sections on
Saw (film series) and Saw V. I'd support a redirect and protect, however. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep : It is official that there will be a Saw VI, considering that they are going to be doing a reality tv show in which the winning contestant gets a role in Saw VI. Yeldarb68 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (
MuZemike (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Have you considered the redirect option? Is that not a viable solution here? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is obvious and confirmed that there will be a Saw 6 and already has a confirmed director. Furthermore, it will keep being created by fans of the franchise if it is deleted. I see no reason to delete as it will continually expand, because Saw 5 has just come out. Fans will turn to Saw 6 and Lionsgate will release information, which will be posted here. If sources are needed for this to be kept, they can easily be obtained. Petee326 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fans won't be able to keep re-creating it if it's turned into a protected redirect.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure whether we should be following the letter of
WP:NFF in this case. Is holding a reality TV show for someone to be in the next film a significant investment? As significant as rolling film? Besides that, they're churning these films out at quite a clip. I don't really see it as likely that this film won't get made.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
principal photography has not yet begun: The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Protecting the redirect temporarily sounds like a good idea, as discussed above. Cliff smith ^talk 05:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A redirect is clearly in order here. Why can't we simply salt/protect the redirect until shooting begins? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest, I don't really care what kind of back and forth procedures this website goes through. Redirecting and bothering to even discuss this is a waste of your time. Saw VI is a definite. It doesn't make a difference if there is a huge effort by users push for the article to be removed, because it will be put right back up inevitably very soon. Not because of fan determination, but because of the sheer and undeniable fact that Saw VI will be made. 1) The reality series which is casting for the film (ie, if the film isn't made, what is the winning contestant going to be left with? A lie and false promises?) 2) Tobin Bell and Costas Mandylor are officially signed on. As are the writers and director of Saw V. 3) Saw VI was even intended to be filmed back to back with V, that's how definite VI is.

But like I said, delete the article all you want. But Saw VI will happen, and the article will be back up in no time with even further confirmation, and the deletion of this article as it is now, would be nothing more than a waste of your own efforts and time. NOTE: I'm not being a passionate fan, I'm being pragamatic. All I see in reality is users who dislike SAW and are masking that motive with false attempts at flimsy attempts at bureaucratic procedures to the impractical extreme. NOTE: I'm not writing as a huge fan of SAW. Personally, I hope SAW VI isn't made. BUT that's how much I'm putting personal bias aside in realizing the reality of the situation. SAW VI is inevitable with actors signed, casting for a new character well underway, and the writer and director already signed up. Delete it if that is the decision, but gee, what a waste of your time and effort. It'll be right back up in no time. Saw VI isn't in question if they are officially casting for it. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based upon the connection to a television series being aired on a national network; production announcement of Saw VI can be verified via that source (filming does not necessarily have to have begun). The second source is a blog and blogs aren't allowed, so this should be replaced with a Wikipedia-recognized media source ASAP. But right now the VH1 connection is enough to keep this alive and to avoid CRYSTAL. However, I have no predjudice against renomination (or someone going
WP:BOLD and merging) should production of Saw VI (or the Scream Queens TV series) be cancelled. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete The article fails
WP:NFF directly. Now, NFF, being a guideline and not a policy, is not ironclad. I can see notability conferred by a prominent TV show being sufficient to allow for an article on an unproduced film. Why delete, then? Because I don't see evidence that Scream Queens is itself notable, or that the Saw VI connection will be significant. gnfnrf (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Saw (film series); I agree with nominator's argument, but I think that a redirect, possibly salted, would be better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Redirect to
Saw (film series); enough of evidence and info has been planted to already know that this is on it's way, pretty much like the Saw Video Game. If you don't decide to keep it, redirect it at least so it would spare the amount of time recreating this article for a later purpose. Carbo45 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Only Keep. Because film present on IMDb. ID 1233227.--Agent001 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is above user's first edit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important, I am user Agent001 from russian Wiki. I a long ago watch after the articles
Saw (film series).--Agent001 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

why delete ?? This page will exist anyway in one month, even if it's deleted now. it would be foolish. Nico92400 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So... is this a vote to keep? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Nico92400 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tried to fix the page up a bit. I think, now with the several refs found and the clean-up I, and several others, have done, this page may finally deserve to be kept. I do, however, feel that until many other things become available, it should be watched heavily as it may be vandalized. Just my observation. But overall, I feel it's a weak keep, if not redirect to the
HE R E 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: To the editors who are voting "keep", the
Spider-Man (film series)#Future). It is easy enough to develop a "Future" section on the film series article and export it to a stand-alone article once filming begins. It cannot be absolutely guaranteed without a doubt that this film will take place, and redirecting is a viable option to compensate for that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply. I believe the reason most believe it should be kept by the "filming" guidelines, is because several times it's been reported that Saw V and VI would be filming back to back. I don't necessarily know if that's true, but it has been stated. --
H E R E 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and SALT. JBsupreme (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per
WP:JUSTAVOTE, care to explain why? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes I would, thanks for asking. The sources presented are unrelated to the subject or do not meet our standards for reliability. JBsupreme (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ for now. The film is confirmed, the director is set, the release date is available, and some of the cast is signed on. Deleting the article when production will start in a couple of months seems unneccessary, and salting it will just cause more problems.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think this might be the best solution, redirecting it until more info is available, given the all the morons adding Cary Elwes to the cast list and what not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. This is a case where the it may make sense to ignore the letter of the guideline and keep the article even though production hasn't started but I remain reluctant to give it the go just yet. Plenty of films make it to this stage (written script, signed director and main cast) and then fall through. Thus
WP:CRYSTAL. In this case, we're right on the edge, and I'd rather wait for the beginning of filming (or at least better sources)before going with a full blown article rather than a redirect to Saw (film series. There's certainly material to cover, but I think that it is better in the main series article for the next few weeks/months. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Despite my rather dim view of film producers, however, I do not think so little of their business acumen as to believe that any would actually put themselves into a position to be legally forced to spend millions of dollars on a production because of a TV contest. Productions are cancelled all the time, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list, and contracts are regularly broken; indeed, they are usually structured in ways to compensate if a film does not happen. (See
long and tortuous history of Superman V is worth a glance? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect, and here's why: No-one is disputing that Saw VI is highly likely to happen. But the point is that it's not 100% likely. It might seem like a petty distinction to make, but without that distinction provided by
Saw (film series)#Future development or Saw V#Sequel. I would urge fans of the series not to consider whether the film "deserves" an article, but instead to consider what's best for the readers of these articles. With what little information is available about Saw VI at present (naturally, because filming hasn't started), surely the best place for information on it is in the context of the other films in the series. Steve ^{T • C} 09:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The logic of "this film may never happen" would be fine were it not for the fact that the last four sequels have come out 365 days after the last like clockwork for the last four years. This is no Pinkville, this is no White Jazz, this is no Superman V, this is no Jurassic Park IV. There are no arty considerations for this film, there are no casting dilemmas (as Mandaylor and Bell have contracts for VI), there are no production delays (V was made during the longest writing strike in memory), this film is impervious to the fires of development hell, this film will begin in a few months and will be out within twelve months. Keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's exceedingly likely that Saw VI will film on schedule. But these are arguments I've heard before about films that I was sure would happen too, yet ultimately did not, or were postponed. Bell is signed, but what if he suddenly holds out for more money, or the production has to be postponed for a couple of months because he's busy filming something else, and then something else comes along to delay things after that (accident, illness, getting the actors back together at the right time)? What if Saw V suddenly drops 90% in its second week of release and the studio decides "that's enough"? Again, I agree that all being well the film will go ahead. But if we're being consistent then this has to go until principal photography begins. Otherwise we're opening the floodgates to articles created after the barest hint of an announcement in Variety. Steve ^{T • C} 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those theoretical scenarios are enough to delete, if Bell gets ill they'll re-write, his contract dates from before Saw IV so he would be unlikely to renegotiate it now (especially as he is dead in the franchise and they could manage without him), if Saw V drops 90% they will have still made all their money back from the opening weekend. NFF applies to most films, as a release rate of five films in 1,461 days it is clear that this is not like Superman or Spiderman or any other franchise, it is even more prolific than Elm Street, Halloween or Friday 13th. As for opening the floodgates I would say the bar for that is suitably high, Saw is the exception not the rule, and I would say
WP:IAR applies in this case. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No, that's your original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a bit biased since I'm a Saw junkie. I would have said delete to this one, but the notability of Scream Queens kinda makes Saw 6 more notable that the other movies were at this point in their development. It's certainly more notable than the wildly speculative Saw 7. --User101010 (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to
Saw (film series)#Future development. I have no doubt whatsoever that Saw VI will be released in October 2009 and the winner of Scream Queens will appear in it. I think it's highly likely that the Saw franchise will eventually reach at least 8 films, considering the budget of these films, their grosses, and their review-proof nature. But given the recent vandalism to the article, a year is a long time to fight pointless cast speculation and vandalism, so I think a redirect would be best until it actually begins filming. --Pixelface (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Do not delete.. Saw VI has been confirmed for at least a year, if not more, and this page will come back here ANYWAY in one or two months' time, at the very latest. Makes absolutely no sense to delete it now. Thank you. - My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above comment, KEEP. --
talk 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Saw V#Sequel and Protect Until verifiable sources are sufficient enough to sustain the article. BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect and preserve article history for when filming starts and we can unprotect the article. There are good arguments for why this film will be made, but the laundry list presented by Steve and Savanarola of films that were sure fire but never got made is more persuasive. Deleting this doesn't make any sense either, as a protected redirect will prevent article re-creations until the film is made or the project is dropped.--chaser - t 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a cast already signed and a script written. It will just be recreated in a few months anyway just protect until then to avoid vandalism. JakeDHS07 04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until there is more information about the film and it's closer to coming out. But the information can also be moved to the Saw series page until there is enough to have it's own page.LoveLaced (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as there is even a show called Scream Queens for which the winner wins a spot in this film.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out, that doesn't really mean anything. Read Giro's long post above as to exactly why. Steve ^{T • C} 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to
Saw (film series)#Future development. The article doesn't meet notability criteria yet for future films, because principle photography has not started yet. Raven1977 (talk) 19:23, 1 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 G3; complete hoax. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evanti

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

Would A7, but the article mentions the reason for notability. Would much rather assume good faith and get a consensus rather than speedy deleting. So far, fails WP:NM. No sources to prove reliability as well.
talk) 02:01, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Alternative Pespectives in the Social Sciences

Journal of Alternative Pespectives in the Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An academic journal that has never been published, therefore has no measurable impact to scholars. the first issue is suppose to be scheduled for December 2008 and it might become notable after then - if it is indeed published (because I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL). Cameron Scott (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Good luck to them. —SlamDiego_←T 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Further comment: There seems to be a
conflict of interest issue, in that the article was created by an editor with an alias which is the last name of a member of the editorial board. I would presumed good faith here even if that were not policy of Wikipedia, but good-faith edits can still be skewed. —SlamDiego_←T 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Added comment: Note the names and positions of the Advisory Board. There are two more von Feigenblatts, one an “Itinerant Ambassador of Panama to the Middle East”, the other “Consul General of Equatorial Guinea to San Jose (Costa Rica)” and previously “Consul General of the Republic of Costa Rica to Alicante (Spain)”. Thin smoke and dull mirrors. —SlamDiego_←T 12:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think its notable yet; given its being published by grad students in the department, I think the odds are that it will not be, so I wouldnt have an article at this state. If it becomes notable, and a few such journals have, it can be added. I note that journals even before publication announced by really major publishers with really important editors in chief and editorial boards can become notable immediately, just as a new novel by a really major author. (though as a librarian, I've usually waited until there has been at least a table of contents for the first issue available before spending the money). DGG (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article can be recreated in case the journal becomes notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gotta say I like their alternative perspective on the spelling sciences, though.John Z (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire, pure vanity piece for an unpublished journal. Should be a slam dunk; the thing doesn't even exist yet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of publications go belly up before even publishing their first issue. This article should be nuked until the journal actually exists so it can be evaluated. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Future publications can be notable in spite of
WP:CRYSTAL if they get wide publicity in reliable sources. This is not one of those cases. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 28 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 redirect to
List of characters in King of the Hill. The article has been redirected; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Joseph Gribble

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

This character does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to
DARTH PANDA^talk 05:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect as per Darth Panda. References can be found for who voiced the character and merging would allow for removal of extrenuous info. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per everyone. JuJube (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How exactly is this independent from the article and where are the third party sources you mentioned?
DARTH PANDA^duel 18:24, 1 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. Again adding info because it was requested. Apart from the nom, there's no !vote to delete. Merging or re-directing is an editorial discussion that does not require an AfD. There is consensus that the material should be kept, where it lives can be decided outside this AfD. TravellingCari 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Pataki

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

This character does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk
) 01:23, 27 October 2008

Keep apparently referenceable, since one ref has been already added, from G Books--hardly an obscure source. And, what is the meaning of :no current assertion for future improvement"? "no likelihood of improvement", perhaps--but how can one tell if one does not look for references in the obvious places. DGG (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that this specific character is independently notable, and therefore no reason to split from List of Hey Arnold! characters. I suggest that this article be merged there, with the list fleshed out and minor characters removed from the list. I also suggest that every other character in Category:Hey Arnold! characters which has no explicit notability be merged as well. Should my suggestion not be in accordance with the final consensus in this discussion, and the article is kept standalone, I note three FU images in this article, none of which "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and should all be removed. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List of Hey Arnold! characters. I'm not sure what is meant by asserting that this is significant coverage of the subject. It isn't. Here as some possible places to look, but my suspicion is that shallow reviews of the show don't result in significant coverage of the players. Protonk (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - size of parent article suggests having anything rather than a list would make it huge, and as it is a fairly central character of the show I suspect there will be more refs as per the one found plus other similar. I am sure there will be media-related periodicals which have information on individual characters in a show such as this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This debate is included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, this is a major character on Hey Arnold!, a notable show. Everything else is a cleanup issue. --Pixelface (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which part of the notability guideline gives credence to your argument. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to fanfiction.net statistics Helga Pataki is the most popular character of the most popular show of Nickelodeon. If she's to be deleted then all the fictional characters are to be deleted. And I honestly have no idea how to differentiate original research from stating the facts obvious for everyone who has watched the show. — Hellerick (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs cleanup, yes, but that is not what AfD is for. —
neuro^(talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please actually address one of the issues for deletion, such as its OR, lack of notability or violation of
WP:NOT#PLOT. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. The article needs cleanup with a chainsaw. Nothing here is sourced or sourceable; at best this belongs as an entry on a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a good article. It just needs to be refined a little. --Bluecatcinema (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide any justification for your argument other than "it's a good article". seresin ( ¡? ) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't try to rationalize your opinion yourself, so you can't expect from others to act otherwise. — Hellerick (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of
verify that this character is WP:POpular or notable. Now, it has the makings of a good article - images, length, some cites, but it needs a lot more to get there. See above for examples. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to
WP:WEIGHT to this character. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep -for me to vote otherwise on an article I roiginated would be like
Antonio Kiss my...Martin
" 3:56, November 1, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to
Pinoy_Dream_Academy_(season_2). The article has been redirected; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Liezel Garcia

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Liezel Garcia

Articles for deletion/Liezel Garcia (2nd nomination)

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

Previously nominated for deletion because the singing contest she was in was not yet ended. However, she finished fifth in the competition, far from runner-up finish that Bugoy Drilon achieve and he has yet to have his own article. Starczamora (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into PDA Season 2 article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into PDA Season 2 article, nothing here needs merging. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the first AFD and did just that. If it's closed as a redirect again, it should be protected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 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) 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
WP:BIO1E basically. VG ☎ 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Pinoy_Dream_Academy_(season_2)Kleomarlo (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I'll be redirecting this to the mother article. If an admin wants to protect it, s/he may do it. –Howard the Duck 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original author reverted it. I find it weird that he/ she never bothered to post a comment here. Starczamora (talk) 17:44, 31 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) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.o.B.

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

Fails
^(Boo!) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Definitely not a notable rapper per
talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As I see it, the article doesn't even assert notability per
WP:MUSIC, let alone demonstrate it.--Michig (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom fails WP:MUSIC and all that jazz. JBsupreme (talk) 02:20, 28 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Vortex

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

This character does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Why should it matter? Some of us like Cindy, others don't. For those who don't, quit looking at the page, and leave us who do alone.

keep Multiple sources are now present. Just from an obvious search in G Books also. It is reckless to nominate articles as unreferenced -- and actually say they are incapable of improvement -- without checking for references in at least the most common places. I wonder how many of the other nominations for similar articles could have been sourced if the trouble had been taken to source instead of blindly nominate? DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that many in this case. The only thing I found significant sources for after checking most of them was White Base, and I'm not sure how many of those were even on point.--chaser - t 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. There are now two sources discussing the character in the context of pop media depictions of girls. What does "current assertion for future improvement" mean?--chaser - t 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I suggest we carefully reread the sources used and ask if they constitute significant coverage of the subject. Fn 1 and 2 are filmography mentions (just linking character to voice actor). fn4 is a work of fiction. Fn5 may or may not be RS, but its only coverage of the subject is to say "Cindy Vortex is also a genius and is always there to point out Jimmy ’s mistakes. Cindy is one of the ‘cool ’ set who teases Jimmy about his wacky inventions." This sentence basically represents the sum total of what fn 3, 6, and 7 have to say about the subject. Cindy is listed among other fictional female characters in 6 and 7 and little is said about her save that she is a genius. Fn 3, a movie review, has only "Cindy Vortex, who's almost as brilliant as he is, leads the loyal opposition" to say. Again, we build articles from sources. We shouldn't create articles and then find sources as an excuse to keep them. It might be possible to dig around and find some coverage for us to build an article out of, but we aren't there yet. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - size of parent article suggests having anything rather than a list would make it huge, and as it is a fairly central character of the show I suspect there will be more refs as per the one found plus other similar. I am sure there will be media-related periodicals which have information on individual characters in a show such as this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Article is adequately referenced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 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 redirect to
Dune universe until such an article is created. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

T-Probe

T-Probe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This fictional machine does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The only source I could find is this, which is making a more general point about Herbert's head for detail and how he's apparently used things from his life as inspiration for his stories. But I can't find any critical discussion of this minor plot device in particular.--chaser - t 04:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd be happy to merge and redirect this stub elsewhere, as I've been doing with other Dune stubs. However, though it is all in-universe plot stuff, I fail to see the OR. This is the 2nd afd I've seen in which this nominator cites that, perhaps s/he needs to read the OR page again? — TAnthony^Talk 05:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a technology of Dune page or somesuch. Yes, this is alot of detail, and I don't recall Dune having a huge list of doodads. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think merging is a bad option, but where to merge to? There are many other articles in
Dune technology article and merge a bunch of articles into that.--chaser - t 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No references that prove the notability of the subject. The only references in the article are dealing with the appearances. They only prove the notability of the Dune books and nothing more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not sufficiently important for a free-standing article, but usable content. The primary source references are perfectly appropriate for such a use. DGG (talk) 02:22, 28 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
WP:NOTABILITY myself, and none were presented here. Going to defer to the wisdom of editors below who say it is central to the plot, so the content should go somewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Atomics (Dune)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nn aspect of the book. No need for a rd--anyone searching for
Atomics (Dune) would know to look at Dune for dab anyway. JJL (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

MergeI can't speak to sources (I'll look around) but the content is interesting, Herbert's ideas about the politics of atomics use and his idea of a "stone burner" being original. There is little justification for a separate article, but instead of deletion it should be sub-merved into
Dune universeKjaer (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge - The article needs some real-world sources, but Herbert's concept is notable and hey, this is one of the most famous and respected sci-fi novels ever, with several major themes. Where exactly is the OR here, and since when is an incomplete article automatically subject to deletion rather than be tagged for improvement? In the meantime, there are certainly other Dune-related articles in which some of this information can be folded as necessary. — TAnthony^Talk 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no objection to a merge, e.g. to
List of Dune terminology. JJL (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Having read all books in the series, I concur that this article just gathers plot details for an unremarkable plot device. VG ☎ 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular weaponry is central to the plot--it's the basis of the system by which the families preserve their independence, & is utilized several times in the action. This is major SF, and should be mentioned in the reviews. I agree there's no need for a redirect or a merge, it's suitable for a full article. The advice I can give VG is to read the series again, with the more careful attention to detail that one can obtain by looking up Wikipedia articles like this, as a adjunct to the actual book. That's one of the roles of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to
List of Dune terminology. It's not such an important plot point that it requires its own article, and it asserts no notability in any case. It's fine to explain atomics in their relation to the greater Dune universe (which really, is their sole purpose, and it requires two lines), but anything past that is excessive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as notable. No need to delete.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:20, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PzKpfw LXVIII Super Tiger

PzKpfw LXVIII Super Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a a fictional tank that someone made inside a video game (the article is written by the guy who designed the tank). It's "a tank I created one day". In no way shape or form notable and the only source is an IM chat. Cameron Scott (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no evidence provided that this meets
talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm speechless at how inherently nn this is. No possibility of reliable sources providing substantive coverage. gnfnrf (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons stated above and on the article's Talk page--and much respect to Cameron Scott for his patience. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article belongs somewhere, but not on Wikipedia. It lacks
“reliable” sourcing. —SlamDiego_←T 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing much to say has it fails various Wikipedia policy one good example is Notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete pretty much per nom. I am also trying to help out the creator by pointing to the appropriate guidelines and policies.
MuZemike (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even without the numerous tags, it's obvious this article has several problems. Cutting some slack in the sourcing area, notability is still a killer here.--Koji† 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete: Totally non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Send in the tigers? _{I'll get me coat.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 02:20, 28 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 am compelled to follow the opinions of TTN and Sepiroth BCR, as their comments are the only ones actually addressing the article in terms of our relevant inclusion policies and guidelines. While the comment of 63.3.1.2 appears to do so as well, it is a mere mirror image of the nomination, and factually inaccurate. The other comments are pure votes and/or include comments not pertinent to the matter at hand, such as "Just more in-universe nonsense" or "The protagonists ships' in Gundam series are usually significant" (while there is, in fact, no notability guideline or other rule to that effect). Sandstein 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Gundam)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

comment this is not a weapon, it's a spaceship. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a "list of ships in the UC timeline" 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The protagonists ships' in Gundam series are usually significant. However, the article does emphasize in-universe descriptions/history too much and should be summarized instead. --Polaron | Talk 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remind TTN that AFD is not clean up. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a "list of ships in the UC timeline". Just more in-universe nonsense that will never be cleaned up regardless of any promises here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Polaron. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – same as the rest of this Gundam-cruft. Asserts no notability via significant coverage in
WP:NOT#PLOT by being nothing more than superfluous plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:16, 1 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. I was asked to expand and am doing so now. Whether or not to merge the text to another home is still keeping the text-where to keep it, i.e. merging or re-directing, is an editorial decision that doesn't require continuing the AfD. With regard to the deletes, no notability asserted is not a reason to delete if the information can be found. Consensus appears to be that it can be. I read this as a "keep" but if folks are more comfortable calling it a no-consensus, I can live with that. TravellingCari 23:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Base

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

This fictional weapon does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The White Base is one of the most famous fictional ships there is. The article's current state is dire, but listing it for deletion is not the correct method. It should be improved upon, considering its status as an extremely well known element of a fictional series.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a "list of ships in UC timelime", though I'm pretty sure you can find Japanese sources for this. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the principal ship of the protagonists of the series and is referred to in dialog in other Gundam UC series. I also recall seeing it in compilations of "famous anime ships" so someone with access to old Japanese trade publications might be able to source this. --Polaron | Talk 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean-up. The main ship of Gundam original series (the first and most notable of all Gundam series) shares the same position of Macross and Yamato in terms of notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Zero Kitsune. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The copy-pasted nomination incorrectly describes this spaceship as a weapon. And of course there is no "current assertion for future improvement" - no article on Wikipedia contains such comments. The subject is one of the most notable fictional vehicles, being the central vehicle in the first series that spawned a huge franchise involving multiple TV series, movies, comic books, video games, novels, and associated merchandising of models, toys, artbooks, tshirts, keychains, etc. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout TTN for not reading before nomming This is basically the Japanese version of the starship Enterprise. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to back that up with actual sources. The article is seven paragraphs of pure plot information and trivial statistics without even a hint of real world importance. Starship Enterprise and its sub-articles, while mainly badly written, have at least have a bit of information to assert some sort of potential improvement. TTN (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable, but article is in dire need of sourcing. Flags should remain or be added accordingly. MalikCarr (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – absolutely no notability asserted via significant coverage in independent,
plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The White Base is as earlier noted not a single weapon, but rather a ship, and is definitely notable. There is definitely room for improvement over what is already there, but deleting it would almost be like deleting the RX-78 article, as both the White Base and the RX-78 are crucial to the plot of the original Gundam series. Ewdin (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the article's poor state, it is very hard to assume good faith that only after 5 days of it being tagged with issues, along with quite some other articles of the same sort, TTN placed an AfD on the article. MythSearcher^talk 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly in-universe, with not the slightest suggestion--or hope, really--of any coverage or importance outside of its fan-base. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No 'hope'? This ship is an extremely famous and iconic part of history. The page is lacking now, but third party sources can easily be found to back it up.kuwabaratheman (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then show the sources. If this is such an iconic part of anime history, then sources should be easy to come by. As it stands, the article should be deleted for the utter lack of such sources, and that it's nothing more than plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does by this weekend,, then I'll do my best to provide plenty of sources. But I should remind you that AFD is not a cleanup source. The article is in dire need of cleaning up, but not deletion. Bringing this page to AFD is only wasting everybody's time.kuwabaratheman (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that AfD is not cleanup does not mean that the article does not have to show adequate sources to demonstrate notability; quite the contrary, one of the purposes of AfD is to determine whether such notability actually exists. Demanding whether sources actually exist is an actionable request that must be complied with. The sources do not even have to be put into the article. Showing there that source A says B and source C says D about the subject is enough. As it stands, there is not an iota of notability asserted, and it should be deleted. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I've always seen arguments about sources are not notable, anything anime related are not notable and so on. So, I got a source that says the Archangel class in the
Mobile Suit Gundam Seed series, which is aired 24 years after the first Mobile Suit Gundam is referencing the White base, seems quite giving the white base a good notability.(source: Otona no Gundam Perfect, Nekkei Entertainment, this is a secondary source) Yet most of the time similar things would be given regards of being fictional stuff are not notable as a whole and is totally ignored. BTW, the White Base also have same class ships that appeared in various Gundam related games, and is the first(or at least one of the first) mothership to be able to carry units in the Super Robot Wars series. During the on air period, in the magazine Animage, there are also various questions about White Base, instead of focusing on the mobile suits, like comparing it with space battleship Yamato and from its exotic design, asking if it can transform into a giant robot.(The latter question, Tomino replied the questioner watched too much TV and manga and please do not watch anything but Gundam only in a joking manner.) Mobile Suit Gundam is the family anime in Japan, and is not only popular but also have great influence on Japanese culture, characters and machines in it are also having much more influence than Starship Enterprise to the American culture. MythSearcher^talk 10:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It is an important place/object on the show (a la
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shouta (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep And clean-up. Please spike the notability into the lede so the rest of us understand why his is notable. Also please add some obvious references for those wanting to drill deeper on their own.
-- Banjeboi 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the closing administrator: none of the 'keep' comments have addressed notability in Wikipedia context, only unsupported assertions of notability, as well as comments about it being 'popular' or 'important'; absolutely nothing addressing significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere in good faith that this has some notability (
WP:V unknown). If this AfD ends in a keep (likely), leave the cleanup tags in place so that this article can be reviewed in a couple of weeks/months for improvement. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:26, 1 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
WP:V. May be merged from history (with sources) at any time. Sandstein 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Londenion (space colony)

Londenion (space colony) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This fictional location does not establish
unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Redirect to
List of Universal Century locations.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Kuwabara. Though I'm pretty sure you can find Japanese sources for this. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Kuwabara. Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. There is no reason presented as to how this article can never be improved. Plus boilerplate nominations feel rather bot-like and indiscriminate. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:17, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westerly Fire

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

Article about a fire department that does nothing more notable than the thousands of other fire departments in the world. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Canuck85 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom says it all
talk) 07:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails
WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete we don't generally include local fire departments because in general they are not notable, and nothing is advocated here. Numbers don't count--if they each were notable we could include each one. DGG (talk) 20:32, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Błażej Nowak

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

Football (soccer)
player, who has yet to play pro and currently plays at a red linked college.

Note: Tagged by
DARTH PANDA^talk 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Severely fails
DARTH PANDA^talk 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete My gut tells me this is a vanity article that may have been created by the person in question.
talk) 07:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he may just fail
WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. 90 Minut does not have any listing for such a person ever playing for GKP Gorzów Wielkopolski. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:ATHLETE cf38^talk 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE etc. JBsupreme (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., fails criteria.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:46, 29 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. Sandstein 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Renehan

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

Not notable (position at bank alone not sufficient), no (working) external references. Good faith search efforts (books and internet) found no mention. Bongomatic (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged as such.
talk) 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

keep the eferences given appear sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:05, 23 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) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are strong. It could do with an expansion, but no real reason to delete.
talk) 07:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:02, 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 speedily deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.darkeras.com/guide.php - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Eras

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

Fails
Red 2 ~~~~ 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. —
talk|contribs) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy A7 - browser game = web-based content. Has already been deleted twice as such, and I have discussed with the contributor the reasons why, and what he needs to do to avoid the article being deleted. However, here it is a third time with still no hint of an indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per Marasmusine, had a quick look for sources and turned up zilch except a few listings on databases. Text-based MMOGs are ten-a-penny, free and much of a muchness, review sites aren't falling over themselves to cover them. No assertion of notability and very little chance of that ever changing. Someone another 13:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (
MuZemike (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

SPEEDY DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 02:22, 28 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) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Boell

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

No establishment of notability. Never played a game in the NFL, played college football for a Division III school. Wizardman 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep because he was drafted by a professional team and NYU was a
Division I school while he was a a student there. Jwalte04 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, okay. Still, playing division I college football and being drafted isn't in and of itself establishment of notability. Wizardman 20:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will try to get more information on him then before the deletion deadline. I do know he is the NYU Hall of Fame. more to come. Jwalte04 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 23 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) 00:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Info from current article doesn't pass
WP:ATHLETE. VG ☎ 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - can't see much in available on-line sources other than the fact he was drafted by an American Football team in 1940. As he never made an appearance at professional level, fails
WP:BIO either. - fchd (talk) 19:33, 28 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. Sandstein 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogswara

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy
notability guidelines, seems little more than advertisement. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 23 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) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It passes the general notability guideline, with several references, including an article in the national daily newspaper The Hindu. This Google News archive search shows some media coverage hidden behaind a paywall. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This could do with a bit of a rewrite by someone who is familiar with the site but I think it should stay.
talk) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: There is plenty of sources. Schuym1 (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as there is an extensive rewrite. It certainly seems notable, but it reads a bit too much like an advertisement. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:15, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Reason Tour

Appeal to Reason Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable concert tour. No extensive media coverage, nothing that makes it any more significant than any other band’s tour. Just a list of dates that should be reserved for fansites only. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete the article because the tour is not notable. Tim meh ! 23:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable tour.
talk) 01:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 23 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) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable tour, that fails to meet
WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Oh boy this is a candidate for nonsense in my opinion!
talk) 07:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Appeal to Reason - I consistently believe that unless there is some particularly noteworthy occurrence in the tour, and the tour is in promotion of a specific album, then it is appropriate to discuss the tour in the album article. This appears to be no exception. -Verdatum (talk) 15:52, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusicOMH

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

The article doesn't explain why its notable. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about it has been deleted before (
Notability (web) guideline. I have not been able to find any coverage, more than a mention of its name, in reliable third-party sources. —Snigbrook 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't establish notability. Canuck85 (talk) 00:58, 27 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) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this has been deleted previously, then Speedy Delete.
talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable. I looked for sources because I thought it might be nice to have the article. I ran across it while working on a reference for the
Hi ' 21:46, 28 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) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Encounter Alberta

Camp Encounter Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and does not assert notability from reliable sources. Appears to be mostly an ad. Flex (talk/contribs) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It requires citation, but does not appear to be an ad as it does included critical viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.182.2 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a camping trip into the wild is not notable. Canuck85 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A7 this article.
talk) 01:24, 27 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) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and no obvious claim of notability either. Just because it's not an advertisement is not a reason to keep it. VG ☎ 12:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would argue that it still falls under
DARTH PANDA^talk 12:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per above no reliable sources, basically advertising.
talk) 22:34, 30 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) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Encounter

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

Unreferenced and does not assert notability from reliable sources. Appears to be mostly an ad. Flex (talk/contribs) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Includes reference to ACA publications regarding its notability within the camping community. Within the camping community it is certainly a noteworthy entry. It could use some editing to be a little more objective.

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, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsalvageable IMHO.
talk) 07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per
DARTH PANDA^talk 12:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Advertorial with no sources? Should have been speedy.
talk) 22:33, 30 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) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyAlbum

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

This sounds like spam. The article is really short. Perhaps some notability issues also. Google returns only 12k documents: http://www.google.com/search?q=-site%3Amyalbum.com+myalbum.com Photoact (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:55, 24 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) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like spam to me. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definitely advertising and doesn't even try to be encyclopaedic!
talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy just get rid of it under
WP:SNOW! per noms above. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:59, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesmusic

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

Seems to be a
hoax. A single user created this page and Indonesian Single Top
(which is also being nominated here), linking both pages to an "official blog site" which appears to be quite the opposite of official. If you look at the single page, it stops after 2007, which leads me to assume that the creator got bored and then gave up. There are no sources outside of this blog, and there are less than a handful of Google search results, almost all of them mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm sure that there is some sort of Indonesian recording organization (and therefore some sort of chart). But this is not it. And just to confirm, I am also nominating the following related page:

Indonesian Single Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 23 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) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definitely a hoax. If this was genuine they would not be using a blog. They would have an official site complete with links to artists and so forth.
talk) 07:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - Hoax, unreliable sources. Author uses bad grammar, and has a COI. Not worthy of an AfD, speedy it. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gonzalez .

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable musician. No reliable sources found for The Paladins, no real notability established separate of Hacienda Brothers. Period in title makes it an unlikely redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment get rid of the full stop. The question here is wether being on of the "Top 101 All-Time Unsung Guitar Heroes" as selected by Guitar Magazine or having a Signature Model made by Fender qualifies as The person has received a notable award or honor or indicates a widely recognized contribution. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 23 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) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...keep? OK, this article needs work by someone who knows how to look (I did some editing for tone and all), and I can't imagine that there's nothing there. Actually, I'm kind of shocked The Paladins don't have an article. They was good! (And they were quite popular in Europe, a decade and more ago...) Drmies (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure which "Guitar Magazine" put him in a list as there seem to be mutiple publications with that name, but that doesn't really matter. Fender making a signature model clearly makes him notable already. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--You're right, there's something not right there, but I'm working on it. It seems to be Guitar Player Magazine, but a search on their website was in vain. I'll keep looking. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 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 G1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador II (Film)

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

Article appears to be made up and doesn't have any sources. Statements such as "leading to the spontaneous combustion of all DVDs, Blue-Ray Dics, VHS, and movie theaters within the United States" and "rumors state Eric Salvador as playing up to 23 characters in the film. The only known fact is that Jim Belushi will not be casted" appear to be jokes. Kman543210 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having
only the most tenuous connection to reality. The 'jokes' aren't even funny. MadScot (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Ignoring the bizarre claims, possible hoax, and unsourced problems, the article still fails
WP:NFF, since even if you believe everything it says, principal photography won't begin until next year. gnfnrf (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete as blatant vandalism. Proclaims that Oliver Stone's film plagiarized the life of someone who wasn't even born when the film came out. Complete and utter
hogwash. Oh, and by the way: Jim Belushi was in the film Salvador, but it was his brother John who was in the other films mentioned. Thanks for playing, though. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete indeed. And I also didn't think anything funny here. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patent nonsense without a doubt
talk) 07:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete (MuZemike (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - No infobox and falls into
no chance in remaining. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:44, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Sutra (anime)

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

No evidence that subject satisfies the
inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can't help noticing the PROD on this article was deleted by the same anonymous editor who deleted the PROD on
(rawr!) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment These two and four other pornographic anime articles with similar notability problems. All of which are now at AfD. --Farix (Talk) 11:10, 23 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) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In no way passes
talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No indication in the article how it may pass
WP:MOVIE. VG ☎ 12:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete. If you do not think this warrants a stand-alone article, that's fine, but deletion is not the answer. This is clearly an existant work of art. If it does not warrant an individual article then move this summary to a compilation page (perhaps for Go Nagai's other works) and redirect the page there. Outright deletion is stupid, this is not a spam article. In order to convince you of this, a little googling has revealed that even the New York Times has found this film notable enough to list. Do most films get attacked this aggressively, or is it only because this is pornographic in nature? Let's discuss this further please. Tyciol (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above, NYT review now linked in article. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reliable source reviews are in the article now; that one's from the New York Times strongly suggests that others can be found in English even though it isn't licensed. That adds up to
notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Er? If I'm not mistaken, Media Blasters holds (or at least once held) the license. That's how NYT got hold of it. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I was wrong, Kitty Media. [43] 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HentaiNeko is a
All Movie Guide, which doesn't count towards notability. --Farix (Talk) 02:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - at least one review on a notable website, plus an ANN entry, and this is apparently from only a short search for sources by the author. In addition, the anime is from 1991, and the fact that there are still materials on it today online further indicates notability. Not sure what to make of the nomination rationale, because it is well-known that inclusion criteria were recently heavily disputed, resulting in an all-Wiki discussion, so they should not be cited unless there's a clear violation (this usually means CSD). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:39, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WeBid

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

Non-notable beta software. I declined a CSD nomination simply because A7 specifically doesn't cover software; otherwise I would have deleted it. Frank  |  talk 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Also fails
talk) 01:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. Badly fails
talk) 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Per nom with the above
WP:N. Vanity, test edits, too recent, not long enough, hoax, picture in infobox is external (not allowed) and claims that it is created by an individual (suspicious name, looks like a spinoff of 'Charles Dickens' and no article about him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Æåm Fætsøn (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Blatantly fails
WP:N AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as an advert (G11?) for new software. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly per nom; as it's still a beta, it definitely fails
WP:N Firebat08 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

WeDelete because it fails WP:N, as stated. JBsupreme (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as
WP:PROMOTION. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:39, 30 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
non-admin closure). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

HKBP Colorado

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

This page fails the
this. :D Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:56, 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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_27&oldid=1116879616"~~