Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 27 November 2008 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice chasing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 21 November 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayals of The Joker in film

Portrayals of The Joker in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was spun off of Joker (comics) but is merely duplicative of information presented there. It adds nothing but extensive plot summary, which is discouraged per WP:PLOT. As it cites no sources, it also contains quite a bit of opinion and original research. Basically there is no reason to have a separate article on the character's portrayal in film, as this is already covered much better in the main article. Per WP:SS, the section in the main article should be developed and expanded with reliable secondary source material before a split is considered (note that the section in the main article, though better-written in that it favors real-world contexts, nonetheless only cites 3 sources). Since this article is 85% plot summary, 15% unreferenced claims & OR, it should be deleted. IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A comparison of a basic role across multiple works is not plot summary. The article seems to still in in process--the discussion of the different films in uneven. There is certainly enough information in the various reviews to source it, and eliminate the impression that it's OR. . considering the extent of the material and the importance of the character, a separate article seems not merely desirable but almost essential. It expands, not duplicates the information in the main article, I think it corresponds to Section 5.1, Live-action, which, quite properly, is a summary of this. -- if it does not expand on it sufficiently, it can be further developed.. DGG (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as-is makes no such comparisons, though. It re-presents a summary of the Joker's roles in the plots of each film, and then makes unref'd analytic claims about them. Granted, improvement may be possible, but my contention is that this should not have been split off from the main article. The development needs to happen there, where some decent material already exists. In the future, if it seems the section is getting to the point where it can stand on its own, then by all means split it off into an independent article. But merely jumping straight to the independent article (without even including the decent info from the main article) is entirely premature. I'm not aware of any other media-specific character articles, so I don't really have a precedent to point to. Superman in other media, maybe, but that's really just a list article. Common practice seems to be to discuss all portrayals of these characters in main articles, ie. Superman. As I say, a future split might be appropriate, but the gun was severely jumped and it should be nixed in order to keep the development in the main article where it belongs. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article shouldn't exist in this form. As noted above the procedure is to expand the relevant section and split it off and in comics you'd split the whole "in other media" section off. Given the fact that this was previous done, to Joker's appearances in other media, and then merged back in again means this is also going against consensus that the section isn't ready for a split (if someone thinks it is then they should feel free to start a split discussion). (Emperor (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • 2 points to rebut here: 1) Joker (comics) isn't jsut about the comics. That title is merely a disambiguation. Note the "In other media" section, which covers live action, animated, and video game adaptations. Same thing with Batman: An "In other media" section covering films, animation, etc. with a link to the separate article Batman franchise media. Clearly not a "huge gap in coverage", and exactly how these things are expected to evolve along the lines of WP:SS. 2) No one is suggesting that this subject matter couldn't be made into a decent article. What's being said, rather, is that it needs to develop in the main article first before it's allowed to split out on its own. Otherwise we're just going to be back here in a few weeks trying to merge stuff back in. Somebody put the cart before the horse, and instead of working on the existing "In other media" section of the main article, developing it to the point where it could stand on its own, spun out a separate article in favor of expanded plot summary and original analysis. That needs to be nixed so that the development of the content can happen in the main article, where it belongs, and we can do it now while there's nothing to be merged. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me. I've changed my vote to "merge+redirect", with the redirect going to the relevant section of Joker (comics) for the benefit of those who are more interested in the movie and TV portrayals. BTW in Joker (comics) it might be helpful to retitle that section "Movies and television". --Philcha (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I see there is that there is no referenced content, so there's nothing to merge, and the title is complex enough that the chances of it being a likely search term are miniscule. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add sources. The topic is viable; there is great interest in how the Joker has been portrayed throughout the years, especially Ledger's performance which I've heard tell has attracted some academic study (that's anecdotal heresay - I have no source to offer but if what I've heard is correct sources should be out there). Romero's performance has been addressed in several books on the Batman TV series as well as the autobiographies of Burt Ward and Adam West, which can be cited. Viable spin-off regarding a notable character in popular media. As noted above, an easy first step is to simply borrow sources from other Joker-related articles and start from there. 23skidoo (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my responses above. The contention is not that the topic is not viable, but that it should be developed in the main article Joker (comics) first before a split is considered. Splitting it now was entirely premature and resulted in an article of nothing but plot summary and OR, and by nixing it while there is still nothing to merge we can assure that the positive development of content happens in the main article, until such time as it may warrant a split. This provides a better service and context both to our readers and editors. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 23 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) 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeem Alston-Roman

Kadeem Alston-Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined, NN actor/dancer/high school student, nothing significant in Google. roux   23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Golieb

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

Autobiography, heavily edited by single purpose accounts and suspected sockpuppets. Contested PROD. Seems like a case of a person only known locally for one minor event. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1000 recordings

1000 recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article can't seem to decide what the book is called (at least three variants are given: "1000 recordings", "1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die" and "1001 Albums") which does not inspire confidence in its accuracy. The only reference is the site for the book itself so fails WP:RS and WP:N. The list itself is probably a copyright violation. Ros0709 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The entry is not very different from the long standing article 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Yes, confusing that there are two books with very similar names (1001 Albums vs. 1000 Recordings) but not the articles fault. This one is no different in terms of copyright than the other one, so delete both or neither. Anyway I thought lists and indexes were not copyrightable. Despite the apersions above, the list is in fact 100% accurate. Find one thing wrong with it. And if you do, fix it, rather than complain that the whole article should be removed.

The other comparable long standing article would also be subject to the putative WP:RS and WP:N criticism. The WP:RS and WP:N issue seems specious. Both articles are saying "a book said these are the top 1000 albums/recording". The wikipedia article claims no more and no less than that it faithfully renders the list in the book. I do agree that the title of the entry should be changed. The Wikipedia user interface seems to channel you into giving it the original shorthand name you searched for, then offer no way to change it later.

I thought the article was good enough, had enough meat, for the community to build it up, improve it, rehabilitate it. But if your standards are that only perfect articles can be submitted, and that peoples goal is to criticize something they could just as easily fix, then you have just seen my first, and last, wikipedia submission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep The title of the book is 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die, and it is totally distinct from this book, which was edited by someone else. The topic of this article is a fairly notable book [2], although I agree that the list should probably go. Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you get rid of the list in this 1000 Recordings article, then get rid of the list in the 1001 Albums article too. But that other article has been around for 2 years. I don't think you can copyright a list. I just don't see why everyone is attacking this article when it is just like an existing 2 year old article.
  • I removed the list from that other article. I'm not a copyright expert, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. We recently had trouble with Nielsen Media Research because of the way we were reproducing some of their data. We could still discuss more general facts about the book, as well as the book's reception. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:07, 27 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.

Amish and mennonite cooking

The result was delete Nancy talk 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amish and mennonite cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A personal essay. No independent evidence is presented to support the central assertion that the two groups are so linked. WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do plan to establish a link between the two cuisines. I have only just begun this article, but I do plan on expanding on the link between the Amish and the Mennonites.--Mawber (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC) [copied from talk page;  --Lambiam 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete There is probably plenty of reason to create an article on Amish and mennonite cooking, but this isn't it and would require a complete rewrite as it is currently a short essay. Since they are not known for having comprehensive websites, this would likely have to be written from books, such as those cited. I don't want to discourage the editor who created the article, but this is just too far away from what is encyclopedic. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We might allow the creator some respite to improve the fledgling article before deciding its fate. It is to be feared, though, that the evidence establishing the alleged link will amount to original research. Are there any reliable sources attesting to such a link? If so, please supply them; else, let the article depart in peace from this encyclopedia.  --Lambiam 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'From the author"' I have decided to abandon this topic altogether and will not protest deletion. I'm new here! Sorry for the confusion.--Mawber (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, Delete.  --Lambiam 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball delete and salt. Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wii 2

Wii 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst there probably will be reliable information about a successor to the wii someday, this is not it. The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour - there is no reliable or verifiable content here whatsoever. Ros0709 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are for interesting little tidbits in the article, don't verify the basic premise in the least. The image is a copyvio that isn't long for the world either. This is original research and crystalballing, no matter how pretty the packaging is. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I don't understand what you are saying.
(A) What does "isn't long for the world" mean?
It will be deleted as it is a copyviolation. IE: against the law to use here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against the law? what is? — Supuhstar * § 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(B)"Original research" is false, as the research is from and by several sites. If you mean that I'm the only one who put any of it on Wikipedia, well duh, that's what you get with brand new articles.
Obviously you haven't read WP:original research. Please do. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. I cited several sources that are verifiable, did I not?— Supuhstar * § 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provide fail WP:RS ie: they are not reliable sources. Just because some website says something, that doesn't make it true. All sources must pass wp:rs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(C)"pretty ... packaging"?— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article structure and format looks ok. The problem is the content. I think you mean well but you don't understand the criteria for inclusion and sourcing guidelines yet. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I make it plain and clear that much of it is speculation, but it is all long researched, easily predictable, implied, and/or obvious.
  1. Much of it is cited, so calling it "crystalballing" it a stretch longer than the world's longest taffypull.
  2. "[R]eliable information" is there! I say if Shigeru Miyamoto, himself, said it, it must be taken as truth.
  3. "The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour..." Only part of said article was admittant on rumor, while the majority was true. Plus, there are several references included in Wii 2 other than those from What They Play.
  4. Most Important Of All!!! There will be another Nintendo console. No one can seriously doubt that. I put in editors notes on the page, "<!---This [name] is unofficial, if an official one is found, replace this one and move this page--->" It's as simple as that! Wikipedia is great becaues it can be edited on-the-fly. All information that becomes false or is otherwise updated can be chanced when needed! If they call it something else, then the article shall be moved to one with an appropriate name! I love it!— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this interview?— Supuhstar * § 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there --SkyWalker (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence states that it is "in development" and gives several "commonly" used names. Neither is referenced. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ref is needed for nicknames. Do you need to reference that "William" is also said "Billy"?— Supuhstar * § 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate I think you're really missing basically the whole point of verifability, notability, and all those things. Take some time to read through the policies, study the AfD process for a few months, spend some time editing. I spent about four years editing before I made my first page. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps we should just wait until there is something of significance to write about reliably. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know... That's not such a bad idea. I'll save the page in a .txt document and once an official name shows itself, I'll put the confirmed info back into an article under said name. How's that? — Supuhstar * § 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems entirely reasonable to me. Ros0709 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saving it to text you can save it in your user page for example: User:Supuhstar/Sandbox--SkyWalker (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Supuhstar/Wii 2— Supuhstar * § 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would easily get smashed with a crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible. (A) Crystal Hammer is only for albums, not consoles. (B) The name does not say a "probable" or "unofficial" name. It's a fact. It is Nintendo's 8th generation console.— Supuhstar * § 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is only an essay, but actually I would have to agree with MuZemike. I was thinking it applied when I first saw this, but just stuck with traditional crystal to prevent confusion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have since annotated WP:HAMMER to include any unverifiable articles of a similar manner. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But not permanent salt! If this does become the true next console, it will need to be un-salted and probaby semi-protected.— Supuhstar * § 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salting can always be undone, by an admin. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm an admin on Simpedia, as the "§" in my sig explains.— Supuhstar * § 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, never heard of it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://simpedia.co.uk/wiki/Main_Page --SkyWalker (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak merge and redirect Delete. Since the subject is of palpable interest and there are sources (albeit very minor ones), it might be more productive to include to condense this info and merge it into the Wii main article with the final statement that no successor is planned soon [3]. You can then redirectWii 2 and Wii HD rather than salting. I do not believe this would solve the crystalballing or lack of reliable sources issue, however.--Macrowiz (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you merge or redirect something that has exactly zero reliable sources, zero verifiable content, AND the company that is not planning to make it? I am open to hear how that is supported by policy, but that is kinda like making a redirect of Scary Movie 12 because they "might" make it someday. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my suggestion is ONLY predicated on the availability of corroborating reliable resources. I re-checked the sources, and I have agree that they are too poor to warrant its own article. --Macrowiz (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... they say "anytime soon". 2011 is not anytime soon. In fact, it is quite a while from now. 3 years to be exact. We aren't even half way between Wii's releas and then. So no. It will not be out anytime soon.— Supuhstar * § 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2011[citation needed]. Ros0709 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video game consoles are released every 5 years. no citation needed! Like Thanksgiving is on the fourth Thursday of November. It's just tradition. — Supuhstar * § 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On November 15, 2001, Microsoft released the Xbox. On November 22, 2005, Microsoft released the Xbox 360. That's four years. The NES was released in 1983 by Nintendo followed by the SNES seven years later in 1990 which was then followed by the N64 in 1996 (6 years later). The reason Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of every November is not simply tradition, as you say, but by federal law. either way (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft also said that they would join the race at the "proper time" for their next console. This is common for those just starting out.— Supuhstar * § 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After researching some more, I'm going with strong delete. This is far to early to be having this article, and we're inviting a host of other problems. This should be speedy/snowball deleted. There is just nothing out there. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:31, 26 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. John254 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Handel

List of operas by Handel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No consensus for the page. Handel's operas exist elsewhere on WP. Shouldn't be in two locations  HWV 258  22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus-driven location for the complete list of Handel's works here, and until the need for sub-pages is reached (by consensus), the List of operas by Handel page serves only to confuse. The main issue with the existence of the newly-created sub-page is that an editor may find it by accident and start to update information on it—with the result that the updates would not benefit the vast majority of readers who will naturally find their way to the official list of Handel's works (as referenced from the main Handel page). There is a debate underway here on whether sub-paging is needed at all, and until that debate is concluded, there is no need for a potentially confusing sub-page.  HWV 258  23:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a bold merge and redirect? --neon white talk 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? It is reasonable to assume someone might come across the page as he's often known by his last name. Be bold redirect and merge anything useful if you can. - Mgm|(talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-page (that is being requested for deletion) was needlessly created in the previous day or two by an editor who is trying to steam-roller an agenda. No one has had the chance to know about the new page, and it would be a pity for it to become established merely to act as a redirect. There are 26 categories in the contents on the page listing Handel's works, and the new page seeks to split off just one of those categories (opera). For the sake of consistency, should we now have to split off the other 25 categories; or, for the sake of consistency, should we now have to create 25 other dummy category pages so they can act as redirect pages as well?
The new page was created without discussion or consensus and upsets the strategy that has been employed for a long time to display Handel's works (here). The new page was designed to simply split the "complete" works of Handel into two different pages (based on genre). That is not done for other composers, and it doesn't seem right that the practice should start (without discussion or consensus) with Handel. I'm glad that "merge" was mentioned above (as a solution) as that is the exact problem with the recent branch and edit—it precisely unmerges the existing list (for no tangible benefit). With this delete, I'm hoping to return to the existing arrangement as seemlessly as possible so that all of Handel's works are listed on the one page (at least until the community has had a chance to discuss the various options here).
The issue is not about Handel's name. The well-established existing page is known as List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel so it can easily be found based on Handel's surname.  HWV 258  01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, no !vote I restored the content on the page. The nom in this case deleted the content on the page, nominated it for AFD, then put a "note" on the article page explaining how you could go to another page to see the duplicated content. This is not a proper way to handle this, as the content isn't contentious or BLP related. Please leave the article more or less intact while you have it at AFD, so that others may actually SEE what they are discussing. Otherwise it is poisoning the well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This should not have come here--its a dispute over whether to divide an article--at least I think it is, because the content is at present completely duplicated , without anything additional. If it is intended to develop this page further, into a general or summary discussion of the operas (which, of course, almost all of them, properly have separate articles) it should be titled Operas by G F. Handel, or something similar. If it's just a list, the question is whether the main list is so large it should be divided. I've no opinion on that--it is mainly a matter of style and usability. But the present page in its present form does indeed serve no purpose. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Perhaps next time you'll follow WP guidelines and engage in discussion in order to seek consensus before making changes of this magnitude. You have waded into an area edited by hundreds of editors over many years and made sweeping changes—what did you imagine would happen? If you really do have something to contribute to the list of Handel's operas, perhaps you could sandpit your proposed changes to facilitate discussion. If you need help with that, I'll be more than happy to assist you.  HWV 258  04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "85K" point is not an issue here. 15 points as to why the split should not have happened (covering page size issues) are listed here. If "85K" was really such an issue, why didn't the user Kleinzach sub-page the largest list on the page of Handel's works (there are many much longer tables than the opera table)? Splitting off sections from a long list page is not a normal process on WP.
  • Listing Mozart operas did not necessitate the deletion of the entire list of operas from the List of Mozart's works page. For some reason, the user Kleinzach felt the need to simply delete the information on the current List of Handel's works with this edit.
  • The Handel entry at Category:Lists of operas by composer can simply point to the current list of Handel's operas.
  • The page in question for this delete request simply serves no purpose, so officially: Delete.  HWV 258  03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see what the problem is here. The list seems like it's notable and useful. Further, it has the potential of being so much more than it is right now (something like the List of operas by Mozart could easily be done with Handel). As for content on the list of Handel works, that is something to be decided on that article's talk page between editors not taken to an afd. A further comment to HWV 258, I think you would have done better talking to Kleinzach and asssuming good faith on his part than freaking out.Nrswanson (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Nrswanson. The comparison with the Mozart opera page is a good one; let's develop the Handel page, not axe it. In the meantime I don't see how it cannot qualify in its own right as a WP-article. The objections seem more based on 'empire-building' than on the extension of knowledge.--Smerus (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see significant benefit to the reader by having all the works on one page. But I can also see significant benefits to the reader to have in addition a page specifically devoted to the operas - provided it can be developed into something like the splendid List of operas by Mozart. Not an exact duplicate of what's on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, but an amplification of it. It would also have the advantage of being able to use a table format adapted to the kind of detail that's useful to a reader primarily interested in Handel's operas, but may not be desirable on the complete works page. Each page can then have a "see also" link. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what the initial issue was -- Kleinzach didn't just make this page, he deleted the info out of the list page, essentially implying that operas are important enough for their own page and nothing else is. It's hard to assume good faith when he constantly makes weird edits such as this one and very often skirts the line of WP:OWN. Yes, a list with much expansion would be a very worthwhile thing (sort of akin to a 'series' article for video games or movies or whatever), but operas themselves aren't anything special in the overall grand scheme of the matter to warrant destruction of another article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what I wrote above, "To clarify . . ." etc. Here are the recommendations in Wikipedia:Splitting:
>100 KB Almost certainly should be divided.
>60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
In this case the original page was 85K so splitting off the opera list was a normal WP process. --Kleinzach 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think that is a little unfair to Kleinzach (although I can't speak for his behavior elsewhere). After all he was the one who created the initial list of operas to begin with. He was also trying to be in uniform with the series of articles found in Category:Lists of operas by composer which is reasonable. Perhaps it would have been smarter for him to ask first, but I just see him acting under WP:BOLD and not WP:OWN. That being said, I don't see why there isn't room for lists on both pages as voceditenore has wisely suggested.Nrswanson (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "85K" really was so bothersome to Kleinzach, why didn't he split out the (bigger) list of Cantatas and save even more? It's time for Keinzach to declare his real interest in editing areas to do with Handel. Is this a one-off rip (with ownership issues) in order to continue his opera crusade, or does he have any longer-term interest in improving the reader's experience on the List of Handel's works page? The following are eight points taken from the current discussion here that demonstrate why the "85K" is a meaningless smokescreen put up by Kleinzach in his rushed attempt to modify a page to his liking (without discussion or consensus).
  • The current list page does not feature in the Top 1000 "long" pages, and is well short of the length of number 1,000 on that page (which is about 108K in length).
  • Many of the pages in the top 1,000 are list pages, therefore there is ample precedence for allowing longer pages when in a list format.
  • From Article length - Occasional exceptions: "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields". There is therefore basis for arguing that this list page should not be treated in the same category as normal "long pages".
  • Other editors have found it convenient to list composer's works in entirety on "long" pages. E.g. Mozart and Bach are both greater than 85K in length.
  • The Article length page has a section on No need for haste. For a change of this magnitude, there should be time to discuss the options.
  • Due to the way modern browsers work (caching and staggered loading of individual parts of a page), there is not an inordinately long delay before the first (and subsequent) parts of the page are loaded. The breaking into categories of lists (operas, concertos, etc.) on the page help with browser caching and loading.
  • If page size is an issue, what size is being attempted? With modern browsers and ever-increasing bandwidth, surely not the archaic 32K barrier? If not, then what size (40K, 50K, 60K, etc.)?
  • According to Technical issues, an 85K page should take about 13 seconds to load in entirety—and that's with the slowest means possible of connecting to the internet (dial-up). Surely that's not a problem (and getting less of an issue all the time)?
And for the sake of completeness (and to indicate why discussion would have been nice), here are the other seven points from that page:
  • One or two sections alone should not be sub-paged in order to reduce the size of the page. If only a few sections are to be sub-paged, then how to decide? The first, the largest, etc.?
  • If all sections are to be sub-paged, the page would look ridiculous (little more than two sets of Contents).
  • Because of the way the HWV numbering system was devised, and its implementation in separate lists on the page, other pages can link to categories as the page stands. For example, it is easy for another page to link to the List of Handel's operas section without it being on a sub-page.
  • As the page stands, there is extra information in the various lists. I believe that much of that extra information will be moved to pages on individual works as they are created over time. For that reason, the page is not expected to grow much over the current 85K and will, over time, reduce in size.
  • The current format is uncomplicated (no need for multiple-clicking to investigate Handel's works).
  • The page is interesting in itself in terms of providing the reader with an idea of the scale of Handel's works. This would be lost with sub-paging.
  • The strategy of seeing all the works together is utilised on just about all other composer's list pages.
 HWV 258  21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is good to have a separate page for list of opera ONLY. Article "List of compositions by George Frideric Handel comprises of overall composition - Jay (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see how this is any different than the many discography and bibliography lists that exist, especially since we're talking about an extremely notable composer of this genre. (I do not recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as applying to this point - this is Handel we're talking about). This list helps serve a function of Wikipedia that a growing number of people seem to have forgotten about -- that it's an online reference tool. Someone doing research on Handel, and that's a given -- this ain't some obscure composer -- will be able to make use of this list; every item listed is a blue link, too. 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it some time to develop with a prose overview and more detail than the Opera section on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel and also keep the less detailed opera section in List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. In the Mozart case there's:
  1. Köchel catalogue where all works are listed chronologically with the capacity for the reader to re-order by place, etc. and also in ascending and descending order and an explanation about the catalogue itself.
  2. List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a "selective" (but pretty exhaustive) list of works by genre (including his operas) with only the K number and date, and one of its "daughters"...
  3. List of operas by Mozart with more detailed information about each work as well as a prose overview of the subject.
I'm not suggesting that Handel be treated in the exact same way as Mozart has been, I'm simply pointing out the value of having both a "mother" and a "daughter" list. Obviously, there will be some degree of overlap (as opposed to straight duplication) of information, but I think that's a good thing, and one of the advantages of Wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. It allows information to be organized and presented in a variety of ways and degrees of detail that can be helpful to different types of readers or to the same reader depending on what they need. Incidentally, I'm amazed that there's no link to Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis from List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. Not every reader will know what HWV stands for. Likewise a "see also" direct link to the complete list from Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis would be helpful. In any case, what should be paramount in this discussion should be the best way(s) to provide a good reader experience, not personal animosities or perceived past "misdeeds". Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think the page should be deleted. I reacted (too quickly) to the sudden removal of information from the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page with this edit [8] (which was made without discussion or consensus). As there was no statement of direction as to what else was to be deleted from the page, I merely wished to return to the existing arrangement in order for time for community discussion. Now that I have confidence that nothing will be deleted from the List of Compositions page, I can see value in having the Opera list page. Appologies for any inconvenience caused by my edits.  HWV 258  22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It is useful to the reader to have different lists of works of the same composer, for example by date/work number etc. It's not useful to duplicate the same list on different pages. That's confusing for the reader, especially in this case where one list (List of operas by Handel) has been developed and edited, and the other one (List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Operas) hasn't. --Kleinzach 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't have to be exactly the same (indeed it already isn't). I will however fight very hard to keep a list of Handel's operas (in some format) on the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page. There is much that a complete list page can deliver to the reader. There will have to be wider community support for the removal of the entire list at that page, however that is a discussion for another place and time.  HWV 258  02:10, 26 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.
  • Definite merge. This is a very bad example of list fragmentation: totally unnecessary and indeed potentially damaging to the reader who has gone to the "List of Handle's works" page to get a comprehensive overview. It doesn't work semantically, either, since the operas are works. And his operas are stylistically and generically very difficult to disentangle from his stylistic development. It's a no-brainer. Tony (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnagarbhas

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

Multiple issues tagged since August: No reliable sources, non-neutral poing of view. I de-prodded this myself because the reasons for the PROD seemed poor, and I have tried to coach the creator of the article to improve it, but it has not been improved enough and is not a credit to the encyclopedia as currently written. Fayenatic (talk) 22:43, 22 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck Faulkner

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

Football player who never played in the NFL, ergo fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. Wizardman 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Waywell

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

never played for or managed a professional club, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE requirement ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the snowball clause (over a day at AFD + 6 !keeps without any opposition). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAP R/3

AfDs for this article:
SAP R/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks to me like spam, but it's not clear cut enough to be a straightforward speedy-delete. I personally don't see a way to clean it up enough to NPOV - and quite aside from that, I'd question the notability - but this is a field I don't know much about and for all I know this is the Microsoft Word of enterprise resource planning. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is clean-uppable, but (due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge) don't volunteer to do so myself should this be kept.  – iridescent 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but I see why it is here. It needs to be shortened and better sourced. The software is notable (old version of ERP) but the article is very nonencyclopedic as written. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed off the most obvious of the spammy fat like material, only because I love the way you used "clean-uppable" in a sentence. I don't think I can do the whole job, but this is actually pretty informative in a "jab your eyes out with a fork" boring kinda way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of the content is unclear and possibly unencyclopedic (e.g. the "What is SAP R/3?" section, added recently, which may be opinion/original research), and more references are needed, but it meets notability guidelines and the article contains enough information to be kept. —Snigbrook 22:41, 22 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. John254 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Sustainable Energy Days

World Sustainable Energy Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Article about non-notable conference. Borderline CSD G11 Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It was so easy to find the example I quoted that I think this AfD is destined to become WP:SNOW. Note that WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferred to deletion. How long do you think it would take you to improve the article to the point of unquestioned notability? --Philcha (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, of course... sigh, this one is obvious. In fact, I think that there should be a separate entry for the Energiesparmesse as well. How come the nominator thought that this could possibly be non-notable?? Most ridiculous nomination I've read here in ages. Tris2000 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:53, 27 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 redirected without opposition.  Sandstein  18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imeet fred

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

Delete and move information, if verified, to list of iCarly episodes; non-notable unaired episode. No episode in the series has its own article. Synchronism (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, there is no 'attribution' or any relevant or notable content, the writer is listed as TBA. The only information to be verified is that this Fred character is going to be on this show at some point, which might be a fabrication; it is likely unattributable.Synchronism (talk) 00:25, 23 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. Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydney Town A

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

Lydney Town F.C. is notable, but the club's 3rd string team does not merit its own standalone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 22 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wu: Golden Soul

AfDs for this article:
Wendy Wu: Golden Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy wu 2

Wendy wu 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatHatsby

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

No indication that this passes WP:N or any of the other notability guidelines. All references are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh criteria calls for "an independent, reliable source" -- which salmonmaster is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, by definition. However, there are at least 5 independent sources, and my personal opinion is that, given the nature of this subject, the various sources are sufficient enough to be considered "reliable". Yes, the article needs work (additional sources, renamed, possibly moved to a more generic article) but even in its present form, I don't believe deletion is warranted. Rival (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, "blogs ... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine) - the policy is worded strongly, but not unequivocally. Rhetorically, what WOULD be a reliable source for a phenomenon that is notable due to effects exclusive to blogger communities? Rival (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. When I was accosted by "trout" bots a few months ago, this entry was by far the most succinct and accurate explanation I found, after extensive googling. I've also referred several friends to the entry, when they ran into a trout bot and, like me, had searched in vain for a clear explanation. So although perhaps it ought to be improved or merged with another page (I'm not familiar enough with the mores here to make a call on that), as an outsider/layman I definitely think the information contained is useful and ought not be erased outright. Jsmooth995 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I just made a new friend with one, lol. Cwolfsheep (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - when I get trouted, this is the only page with enough information and links about the phenomenon that I can point the other "victim" to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.209.47 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caddillac Tah

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NM, non-notable person with lack of third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Can't believe i am editing this for the first time since 2008! Am I the only one who heard his song in 9 years?! by mistake of course

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1x1 music

1x1 music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. No assertion of notability. Sources I found are are few and very weak - [11], [12]. The company existed and recorded some low notability bands, but there seems little to say about them other than that. SilkTork *YES! 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bourgian Defense Forces

Sir Bourgian Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know quite what to make of this, but let's start with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources which would confirm notability. the skomorokh 19:27, 22 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Male

21st Century Male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film by director whose article was recently deleted. Prod was removed without explanation. No evidence of significant coverage within the article and none found from a Google search. Michig (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size is irrelevant. If a (hypothetical) 8-minute documentary happens to be highly controversial, is written about extensively in the press and wins awards, it's notable -- despite its size. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus (excluding two WP:ATA comments that may also be canvassed) is that there's nothing mergeworthy here and that the college isn't independently notable. I'll restore the history if somebody thinks otherwise, though.  Sandstein  18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College

Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not an independent degree-granting institution but rather an administrative unit within Xinjiang Medical University and it has no independent notability from the university. The only reference cited does not even mention the college. The link given as official website is the main website of the university and the link from there to the college is empty[13]. No coverage by independent reliable sources or even by non-independent primary sources here, so all the info in the article, apart from the fact that the college exists, is non-verifiable. There is no verifiable info here to merge to Xinjiang Medical University and in fact the only place in this article where the college itself is even discussed is in the first paragraph. The name is also rather unlikely as a search item so does not merit a redirect. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ORG and should be plain deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find sources or useful links? It's easy to delete without trying. - Mgm|(talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment for clarification purposes. Despite its name, this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean, similar to "College of Arts and Sciences" or "College of Engineering" that most U.S. universities have. Such entities are sometimes independently notable, but fairly rarely. In this case there is absolutely no evidence of notability of this college and in fact no sources, even of primary and non-independent nature, regarding its existence, apart from an empty link at the university's webpage. There is absolutely nothing to merge here as the article contains no verifiable information. The fact that the college exists is already mentioned in Xinjiang Medical University article. That is as much as one can do here. And to answer the above question, yes, I had looked for sources and found nothing. Even a plain google search produces just 38 hits[14], most are mirrors/clones of the Wikipedia article and none that would come close to passing WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - colleges of universities, particularly medical colleges, are generally notable. This should have been tagged for sources rather than being proposed for deletion - we need to avoid systemic bias and time should be given for local sources to be found. A possible merge to the main University article is for talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment directly above yours. Nsk92 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sound basis for your comments.TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, what? Which part of my comments exactly? And why exactly do they have no sound basis? Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean". TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you think that this statement is incorrect? That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply. If there is any record anywhere of the college being an independent degree granting institution, it would certainly deserve to be kept. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Chinese government website[15] cited in the article does not say anything about the International Education College but only lists Xinjiang Medical University when providing data for foreign medical students admissions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if you look at the main Xinjiang Medical University website[16], the college is listed there as an item in the same menu as Department of Physical Education and Department of humanities and social science. It is pretty clear that the college has is an entity of similar administrative status within the university as these departments. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply" - quite; you have made an assumption from the article rather than a conclusion based on fresh information. I suggest that this article awaits the provision of sourced information, which is likely to take longer than a few days; meanwhile its continued existence causes no problem. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. No, I did not just make an assumption based on the article. I also looked at the university's website, at the chinese government website cited and did some google searching. There is nothing to indicate that the college is an idependent degree-granting institution and every reason to think otherwise. If someone finds some sources to show that I am wrong about this (and I did look myself), I would certainly withdraw my nomination. But based on what I have found so far, I am quite sure that I am correct. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xinjiang Medical University. The "college" is not an independent degree granting institution. As a sub-unit of the university that has no independent notability, then as per WP:ORG, the college deosn't meet the notability inclusion guidelines. The article itself does not have any referenced material for merge, so a redirect would make the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possibility, but this seems a rather unlikely search term to need a redirect. In fact, the title of this article starts with the name of the university, so the autocomplete feature in the search field would take care of this even if someone did do a search like this. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but redirects are cheap. And to make sure my stance is clear for the closing admin, I don't support keeping this article, and if the answer isn't redirection, I'd support deletion as information is already int he main article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would prefer it to be "delete and redirect" (that is, delete page history and then redirect). I have seen a few cases where an AfD resulted in a redirect, but the page history was not deleted and then the redirect was quickly undone and quite a bit of a mess ensued. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Xinjiang Medical University. Even though there is a distinct lack of currently references, the basic description at the XMU article could be expanded with this information. The information is most probably accurate, so I see this as the difference between being able to verify something, compared to having already verified it. I'd add the appropriate {{unreferenced section}} tag at the time of the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is really nothing to merge in this article that is not already mentioned in the Xinjiang Medical University article, which does have a subsection about the college of international education. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would keep the Chinese name of the program, the number of students that it admits, and the length of the program. None of that information is present in the XMU main article, and all of it would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing to merge, per Nsk92 -- the medical school is notable, but not individual administrative parts of it, unless there's some really special reason. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is the only college in the Xinjiang which is responsible for recruiting the international students from Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries. The name used in different countries for admission into the university is that of International Education College. So I think this college has a worldwide notability. As the name of the article has been changed from International Education College of Xinjiang Medical University"to Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College" it does not show the original name of the college. Plz reverse the name of the institution and keep it in Wikipedia. Plus you can check how much traffic this page is getting from users of Internet worldwide. I think Wikipedia is for the users and not the Administrators discussing whether it has notability or not. This page is having traffic from internet users it means that this is being viewed and helpful for people around the world. Thanks very much If you will consider my request + i will also be posting some examples from different wiki articles which are not degree awarding institutions but they have pages at Wikipedia.220.171.32.76 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. 220.171.32.76 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments struck, as they were made by the creator of the article, who is currently indef blocked. Please unstrike if you feel I have acted inappropriately. //roux   12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the only college in the Xinjiang which is responsible for recruiting the international students from Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries. The name used in different countries for admission into the university is that of International Education College. So I think this college has a worldwide notability. As the name of the article has been changed from International Education College of Xinjiang Medical University"to Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College" it does not show the original name of the college. Plz reverse the name of the institution and keep it in Wikipedia. Plus you can check how much traffic this page is getting from users of Internet worldwide. I think Wikipedia is for the users and not the Administrators discussing whether it has notability or not. This page is having traffic from internet users it means that this is being viewed and helpful for people around the world. Thanks very much If you will consider my request plus i will also be posting some examples from different wiki articles which are not degree awarding institutions but they have pages at Wikipedia. As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an encyclopedia. Page hit counts are irrelevant. What is relevant is reliable sources to establish notability independent of the university per WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with User:Whpq that page hits are irrelevant but as they have been quoted I think it is important that they are quoted correctly - the actual number of page hits for the article in October was 162 not "over 500" and most of these hits correspond to edits in the page history. Nancy talk 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you take this college's name in Chinese there are plenty of verifble sources - the fact that said sources are not in the English language does not mean this article should be deleted - we are not looking for notablilty in the Western world. Please note that the founder of Wikipedia wants to create the sum of all human knowledge here, and if you look under the reasons for deletion, you can read the following "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." There are plenty of sources in the Chinese langauage. Let's not be culturally imperialistic. Moreover this style of college is represented if it is in the States or the UK - I would say that we shouldn't be trying to delete this articel but requesting verifible sources. Kunchan (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, as the header of this AfD says, you should have mentioned the fact that you were WP:CANVASSed to participate in this AfD by the article's creator[17]. Second, if Chinese sources exist, please add them. I don't have a problem with sources being in languages other than English, but these sources still need to be produced and they haven't been. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Dalian Medical University Website
  2. A Chinese online MagazineBurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a translation in to English of the first link - not clear what notability is shown in it though. Second link seems to be dead. Nancy talk 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is essetnially a trip report for a goodwill visit. As well, being an article from the campus news of a university doesn't really qualify this as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 27 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 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geffen Records discography

Geffen Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Jive Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rap-focused, far from complete discographies, will be insanely long if ever completed. Totally unsourced as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:01, 22 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eqonomize!

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:55, 22 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 Didn't realize that other labels had these too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records discography

Atlantic Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rap and pop-centric discography, far from complete, will be a million miles long if ever completed. Redundant to Category:Atlantic Records albums, no other label has a list of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:54, 22 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. Merge / redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection

Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and trivial. While the individual titles are notable, the packaging and marketing of them as a DVD set is not. Prior precedent with Superman boxsets is towards non-notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is padded. Apart from the release date and the films included in the set, the info is unrelated. Star power is pointless trivia and the cameos, while well-known are not related. Info (included in collection) is better mentioned in each separate film article. - Mgm|(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, the sources I had just added were removed by another editor because to read a few of them one had to do a free registration with "Access My Library". I will assume he removed them in good faith. I strongly urge editors at this AfD top assume good faith that they were supportive of notablity of this collection per WP:GNG. Any who think not can easily access them themselves and make that determination for themselves. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After looking through Access World News, many newspapers do indeed report about this DVD collection with some reviews about its quality. However, the majority of the coverage is about Hitchcock's films in general and touches on each different film in the collection. I did not see anything more than reviews, and I think that a stand-alone article based on nothing but reviews would be severely limited. I've included some reviews at Alfred Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection, but it is not going to get any more substantial than these kinds of comments found there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted per WP:SNOW. This is the long-running "Project Deluge" hoax that originated on 4chan (YA RLY). The image and subtitle were made up for a news story (SRSLY). This does not need to endure the full Afd period. GarrettTalk 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Valley of the Flood

Legend of Zelda Valley of the Flood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced rumored game with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Prod contested by IP editor with no comment except an addition of this source, which if anything only confirms the game is a rumor. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 22 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palit

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

Disputed prod. This company may manufacturer good products but that does not mean the company is notable and deserves an article here. If there is notability to be established it must come through reliable sources and not corporate PR departments. JodyB talk 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN business term (0 Google hits apart from WP and scrapers), neologism. roux   16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request for clarification:
BTW Xiaoqing Liu, lead author of the CBPA paper, appears to be one of the heavyweights in QFD, see Google Scholar for "QFD Liu Xiaoqing". E.g. Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMM using QFD is very similar to CBPA. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--and I really don't say that often. I am convinced, after some googling, that the concept exists and that it is real and meaningful (if incomprehensible to me). The article, of course, is really very poorly written, by someone who knows exactly what he is talking about and cannot convey that to an outside audience--and has not looked at or edited enough WP articles to know what such an article needs to look like. Sorry Ivo, maar ik zeg het zoals het is--zo doen we dat in Amsterdam! Still, AfD is about notability, and this is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Article based on a single recent academic paper (primary source in wikispeak) that has one citation!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!! Promotional in nature. Show me that the concept/method is discussed in a secondary source (a book on software engineering), or at least covered in more than one sentence in a review paper, and I'll change my mind. Don't you love it when wikiexperts say keep reasoning "no idea what this is about, but it sounds impressive"?! You should also know that in computer science journal papers are generally less important than conference papers. Pcap ping 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your nicely sarcastic summary of my somewhat off-hand remark. I think that even in a computing-related discussion we could be well-mannered. As for 'promotional,' you are a long ways away from proving that the article author has anything to do with the research in question. But I'll bow down to your impressive array of exclamation points--how could I argue against such rhetorical force? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklawn, Connecticut

Brooklawn, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not classified by either the state of Connecticut nor the USGS GNIS as a populated place. I believe this does not merit a stand alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brooklawn actually does exist as a sub-neighborhood of the "West Side" neighborhood of Bridgeport (Brooklawn is generally the area between Brooklawn Ave and Park Ave north of Route 1). The church is in Bridgeport but the country club is in the adjacent town of Fairfield (specifically in the Stratfield neighborhood). Since the West Side neighborhood does not have an article, I suppose a redirect to Bridgeport might be feasible. --Polaron | Talk 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and possible merge the bit about the river to the Bridgeport article. This entry is nothing more than a map in prose. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect / Weak delete I did the same GNIS search and found no reference to Brooklawn as a defined place. If there is any other evidence, I will reconsider, but there seems to be nothing other than a country club and a church that use the name. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:44, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rosenberg (murder)

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

NN, and poorly written article Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMD (rapper)

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

Non-notable/WP:HOAX. Fails WP:V. Prod removed without comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSB MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 22 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.  Sandstein  18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martynowicz

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

WP:Notability. No indication is given that this name is of encyclopedic interest. The author's interest is evidently based on his or her bearing this surname. Severe WP:Coatracking and non-sequituring, and nothing is said about the name itself other than its etymology as a patronymic for Martin, essentially a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:OR, etc. Unless there are famous people under this surname (i.e. it was a lineage of Kings or something), it doesn't pass WP:N. DARTH PANDAduel 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:N WP:NOR WP:NOT WP:V.... all failed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary's name appendix (and severely cull) if the origin of the name can be confirmed. Otherwise delete, majority of the article is links and discussing patriarchs instead of the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While granting that the obvious can sometimes be incorrect, I'll note that Martynowicz = Martyn + -owicz (son of) is transparent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still working on research for it, of course it is in my interest to have this subject matter available and there is actually relavence in terms of famous individuals, see: Suchekomnaty_Coat_of_Arm. The basic nature of it is due to the fact that this is my first submission. More content will be added/updated. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
      • Response. Might you mean Suchekomnaty coat of arms? I don't see how that page is at all relevant. Since you're a new user, it may be helpful to start taking a look at WP:N and its derivative branches and the WP: links we listed above. That way, you can get a better sense as to what should be included in Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! DARTH PANDAduel 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response: How is it relevant? The family Martynowicz Falls under the Suchekomnaty Coat of Arms, how can that be anymore relevant? I did glance through them actually (WP: Links), however due to the fact that I am at work I cannot look at them in depth. Whenever I get off tonight 17:00EST I'll have a better opportunity to make my case. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (EST)
          • Response. Following this logic, do you believe that every single family under a coat of arms should have a Wikipedia page? No such precedent has been set. DARTH PANDAduel 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response: Okay how about this, if thats the case then why should there be a wiki for any coat of arms? Or should it only be the important ones? Precedence is not justification for deletion is it? If thats the case then how was wiki started?. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
              • This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Response. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I don't believe the Coat of Arms should be deleted, I just believe the particular family name that you are touting is not notable and does not pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. DARTH PANDAduel 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Response: I am by no means solicting my last name, theres no information on it available to the public. I would say by no stretch of the imagination there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people that are directly traceable back to some form of Martynowicz Lineage. How is this not notable?—Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
                  • Before you continue to raise factors that aren't treated as relevant to establishing notability for Wikipedia's purpose, I'd like to suggest that you read the references others have left for you and use them as your guides. I've left a welcome message on your talk page to supply you with additional links to the ways of Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Largo, I saw your message thanks for the warm welcome. I checked your first arguement towards deletion and I think you are incorrect. I am in no way influencing someones opinion on the subject matter. I can see how it would be biased in terms of me having the last name, but I am merely providing information and not trying to sway someones opinion one way or another. I'll need more time to address the other guides unfortunately :(--Bmartynowicz (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nothing you'd written up to the point where I commented gave any reason to think that you were writing the article other than because it's your family name. But regardless of that, I was referring primarily to notability, not bias. The fact that someone who lived 300 years ago and had a surname has umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a basis for assessing notability. Having umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a distinguishing feat for someone who lived 300 years ago. Notable families are along the lines of Kennedys (specifically, descendants of Joseph P.), Bushes (back to Prescott, at least), Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Barrymores, Gandhis, Bronfmans, Roosevelts (in no particular order). —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "there's no information on it available to the public", as the article's creator is telling us, then this subject is unverifiable, in contraventional of our basic Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which is a strong argument for deletion according to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well nothing available to the public as far as information on the internet. Need more time to go to some hard copies.--70.17.201.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to do more through investigation, stupid life getting in the way. I wish there were some people out there to maybe help me out....--Bmartynowicz (talk) 19:14, 24 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  17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmaster

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

Non notable company producing non notable cash machines.. Paste (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. Most of the "sources" are www.cashmaster.com.--Pecopteris (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete = Cashmaster is mentioned in passing in a sentence in the Scottish Parliament discussion. (The discussion lasted over eight hours.) The Extended Retail Solutions article is a press release as is the Business7 article. iExtenso says on its about page: "iXtenso presents all of the suppliers, products and services demanded by the retail sector while featuring this information in-depth." Therefore, the presence of Cashmaster products on their page isn't meaningful. (You might as well link to Amazon.com.) Portfolio has more than half a million company profiles, so this link also doesn't show notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is factual and accurate to the companies history as per the references and further research. Companies such as De la rue, Wincor Nixdorf, and companies under the Group Halma PLC have analogous pages and citations. Please note: Spam is an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it, this cannot be regarded as spam as the information is historic, meaningful and serves a purpose. (Cone28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cone28 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep In reply to 'Paste's comment that the company produces "non notable cash machines". In actual fact the company produce machines that count cash by weighing it. A genuine and notable alternative to counting by hand and a friction banknote counters. The wikipedia page for this actually comments on weight based counting. Surely this means the technology is in fact notable. Stewart1985 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As far as I am aware cash counting machines that weigh the cash are by n means restricted to this company.Paste (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are right in this fact but as stated previously there are numerous reasons for the posting to be valid. Saying that the cash machines are non notable would bring other posts into question. If the machines were mentioned on their own there would be no requirement for the 'cashmaster' post I can agree with you there. But as there are other reasons for the post being made in the first place it would only be neglegant not to mention what the company do and would in turn make the post a waste of time. The original post for the technology has been clearly referenced. Stewart1985 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stewart1985 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article. Cone28 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article, except for edits to add a link to the Cashmaster article to the article for the town of Rosyth and the article for banknote counters. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and encyclopedic entry on a company more than 30 years old. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel compelled to comment again, User:TopGearFreak is correct the arguments being used would mean that we should have an article on every company that any info can be found about on the web, albeit he is possibly being sarcastic to make a point. User:ChildofMidnight seems to be saying that we keep any article that is written in an 'encyclopedic' form and is on a company that has existed for 30 years. Cashmaster is a reputable company, I am sure, who produce good cash counting machines but that does not mean they should appear in an encyclopedia. There must also be at least some doubt about whether the two main contributors to the article are of a neutral point of view as expressed by User:Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Paste (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument would support keeping any article on a company 30 years old that is notable and has an encyclopedic article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a logical and sensible position to take. I agree with it entirely; we should keep articles that are encyclopedic and are about a notable subject. However, I don't think that this article is about a notable subject, and much of the article reads like an unencyclopedic advertisement, so I think this article fails to match the position that we should keep encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to fix any elements in the article that aren't appropriate. As far as its notability, it's not a clear cut case. It has some citations, but they could be better. At least we strongly agree about what we disagree about. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must agree with User:ChildofMidnight here. The argument is starting to move away from the notability of the subject and more towards the credibility and neutral position of myself. As is part of wikipedia lisitngs, the listing is not owned by the initial publisher but is free to be edited by everybody in order to improve it and make it more credible. I feel that enough arguments have been made to support the notability of the article but I do agree that improvements may be necessary to make it conform to all guidelines. I would like to state that this is not my responsibility to fix this and therefore my or any other users neutral view point has no more bearing on the argument. Also in reply to the comment made byUser:TopGearFreak that he has never heard of the company before as a reason for deletion, this is surely not a valid arguement when the whole point in an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. I hardly believe that anybody has heard of every company that has an article about them on wikipedia. Nor do I feel that an international company with offices in many different countries can be compared to a family run sweet shop with a handful of employees. Stewart1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is solidly on the notability of the corporation. I looked at the article's references and commented on them above. The references barely give any information at all. The offices could be mail drops for all we know. (This is very common, and not a slight on Cashmaster, but it does mean that they're not some continent-striding behemoth. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither myself or the references claim that the company is 'some continent-striding behemoth' and neither do the rules for wikipedia state that the company in question has to be a worldwide cash cow. My argument is that comparing this company to a sweet shop is not a necessary argument to make for deletion. The fact that it is not factual is one thing and the blatantly obvious point that it is clear sarcasm just supports my point that it is not a valid argument. Just like a wikipedia article this argument must be based on fact and notability, not on someones personal opinion of the company. I'm sure there are many other companies with articles on wikipedia with one office and less staff than Cashmaster. Not to divert from this argument but to support mine further, Avalon Guitars is one of many companies that I have found in the same catagory as Cashmaster that has been around for a lot less time. Further more they have a lot more information but their only reference is their own website. If this is acceptable for the way it is written then surely the Cashmaster article with a much greater number of references can be edited in a way that is deemed more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart1985 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that's considered to be persuasive. Speaking to the other comments made here, I feel that you're focusing on the way people are saying things and not on what they say. Please look beyond an editor's humorous ways of putting things and engage directly with the meat of the arguments. There are no references that show notability in the article. My comment at 07:20, 18 November 2008 details this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wasn't just commenting on just the suitability of the refernces but also on yours and User:TopGearFreak comments that because you have never heard of Cashmaster that this is a reason for deletion. If you look back User:TopGearFreak never mentioned anything to do with the references. Sugar coating these kind of comments in humour and sarcasm doesn't make them valid or factual. My main reasoning for pointing to another article was that not hearing about a company is not a valid reason for deletion. You have backed up your opinion saying the same thing on several occasions, the comment made by User:TopGearFreak is only personal opinion. As for your comment on the size of the organisation this has no bearing on the argument whether you are relating it to the references or not. The article doesn't claim the company is a massive international company only that they do have offices in other countries. The size of these is not important to the notability of the company and therefore I feel it brings nothing to the argument mentioning it especially in a sarcastic way. Stewart1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science-advisor.net

Science-advisor.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches and no results on Google News and Google books. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 22 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no substantial media coverage. What little is there is wholly unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC) - That was added by TopGearFreaks, must be editing clash. Still support deleting it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 22 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.


shut up - keep the page - i like it - it aitn huring any one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 888anderson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bone (rapper)

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

This is a non-notable Christian hip-hop artist who fails WP:MUSIC. Sources cited are primary sources or the unreliable type, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from actual reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 16:17, 22 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands whose members are all deceased

List of bands whose members are all deceased (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of the subject is not established; this is listcruft. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:07, 22 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 per Emperor's improvements. Schuym1 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop

AfDs for this article:
Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I van't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches. Schuym1 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Alcondez

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

I nominated this actor for deletion a while ago, and my reasons as before are the same today, in that he is a non-notable actor/director/producer, ect. The previous discussion reached "No consensus" but the majority of the 'keep' votes all pointed to his 'lengthy' career as seen on IMDB. However, the majority of these films are all dtv movies with miniscule information, none of which would pass the notability requirements for Wikipedia. As one person argued, "If I make a low-budget film off of a digital camera, which I write, produce, direct, and star in, and release it to a very limited audience, does that make me notable? Just because I did everything on it? Where in WP:BIO does having multiple non-notable roles make you notable?

A lot of the article is unsourced, and a lot of it's fluff, as seen as in this sentence: "As an adolescent his spare time was used for reading and watching movies. He remembers telling his friends “one day you will see me on the big screen” soon after he was know as the dreamer. One afternoon Alcondez went to see a movie starring Mexican actor Mario Almada, it was then that he knew acting was his dream and his passion." I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Conflict of Interest in this article, as there was in a previous version that was speedily deleted. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank all for your opinions and observations, on the issue of the article in question. First of all and according to you post, that the majority of these films are all "DTV (Distrubuted for TV??) movies with miniscule information", some of them I realize from what I found have been released in DVD format (like many other feature films from the past), and probably produced with that in mind but if you observe the quality of some of the films, they are pre-DVD era which may suggest that they were originally released for theatre in the 1990's and before for the Mexican market, along with other films of the same genre at that time period.

I did not state that all the films of this actor were made for the big screen and in the issue of notability, well there are hundreds of personalities that are famous and yet no one has bothered to post any information on them in the Net.

On the point of the "Low budget film with digital camera..." from what I’ve seen in the internet almost all of the actors on YouTube pages for this actor, are well know to the Latin Community including Alejandro Alcondez, which suggests a Budget of a lot more than the price of a digital camera and home editing equipment.

In reference to the "Fluff", I must apologize for the comment made, I know I read it in an article for a magazine some time ago, and because a can't make (find) a valid reference, thank you for removing that part in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia.

In the conflict of interest issue, I must again accept my inexperience of correct style of writing and I appreciate some pointers on how to avoid them but please and with all due respect this does not mean I have a conflict of interest issue. I will correct as needed.

On the DTV notability issue, this article is about this celebrated actor and not about his individual accomplishments or works. As I stated above some films apparently are (re)distributed in DVD format just as any other film from the past. The YouTube sources seem to have a wealth of information on this actor and his achievements, and the Blog referenced is from a well know artist/singer [19] that verifies the information of the article in question.

In reference to the small number of google results, I honestly ignore the volume necessary for notability to be acceptable in Wikipedia, I just concentrated my efforts on the quality of the information I could find.

I would like to post some references from 3rd parties that include information on this subject matter. In reference to the DTV issue there is a film according to IMDB called "Cielito Lindo" which is soon to be released according to some of these sources:

Sound Post production the company is called Juniper Post [20] In the IMDB

Backlotimaging partipated in the making of a Fanfare logo for Alejandro Alcondez Pictures which indicates the upcoming release of the film: [21] which states the following: "It has been really exciting to work with celebrated Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Alcondez to create a new animated fanfare for his film production company. This new 3D animation will be attached to his upcoming American releases on 35mm."

Here is a partial reference of actors that are in the cast of the film "Cielito Lindo" some are know more than others but the fact is that they participate in the film mentioned:

Nicole Paggi [22] Ilia Volok [23] Nestor Serrano [24] Adam Rodriguez [25] Bernardo Peña [26] David Castro [27] Mariela Santos [28] Alex Bovicelli [29] Antonio Costa [30]

Here's one more reference to the production and description of the film which some of the actors mentioned participate [31] which states a lot of information about the film "Cielito Lindo" in spanish

Some other information I found on the net was from a news type website: [32] in which there is a picture of Alejandro Alcondez with text that states the following (excerpt in english) “the kid on the right is a film and theatre actor Alejandro Alcondez in which some films have been reviewed in this website”

Here is one more that talks about one of his films [33] referencing other works done by this actor: (english translation) Alejandro Alcondez “2004 Los Mas Buscados” with Jorge Reynoso and Fernando Saenz (ref. to some soap opera). Alejandro Alcondez resides in Los Angeles, Ca. since 1980 started his career 23 years ago with the theatrical debut “Damelas sin compromise” which in “Blanquita” Theatre in East Los Angeles in 1981. His debut in Film Theatre with well know veteran actor Mario Almada in 1988 in a film called “Impacto de Muerte.”

I would like to thank all for your patience. Cgomez007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonslayers

WP:OR/essay, unencyclopedic. roux   15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

such as the chapter titled "The Dragon Slayer" in a classic book and [34] and [35] and [36] "no published discussion of 'dragonslayers as a topic' " indeed. There seems to be an assumption here that the academic fields of of the humanities does not exist, or does not include such things, or that, with figures such as Siegried and Beowulf et al, nobody would think of publishing a comparison or general discussion. DGG (talk) 04:34, 24 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonsko Devojče

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

Article about a popular Macedonian song, was previously kept as "no consensus". The song is probably "notable", in the sense of being quite popular in its culture, but we have no notable and verifiable encyclopedic information about it. Zilch, nada, nothing, after over a year of editing. Editors haven't even been able to work out whether the song was composed by a named author or is from a genuine oral folk tradition. Article consists almost entirely of the song's lyrics (which may well be copyrighted, if it is a composed work). Don't be fooled by the "external links", they don't contain anything substantial either. The only thing this article is good for is to attract nationalist edit-warring over whether to present it as a "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian" song or both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to WikiSource if someone can prove the song isn't copyrighted. Otherwise delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for lyrics that are copyrighted, especially when no additional information is provided. The only two possibly reliable sources I found were this one (dubious) which showed a performance, and this one in a language I can't read. The other purported sources either don't mention the song, or they mention only the lyrics, or they're not reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. 'Wikipedia isn't a repository for lyrics, so they shouldn't be mentioned unless the writer wants to quote a couple of lines to make a point.' I know I read that on Wikipedia yesterday. Take away the lyrics from this article and what do you have left? A few badly-written lines and a couple of half-relevant links. Delete. TopGearFreak Talk 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong editing I believe no one has put any effort into the article to find information about it. There's two sources posted but deleted by Bulgarians TodorBozhinov and Laveol. Now, I can get started in the article to find sources in a couple of weeks, but I don't think it should be deleted. Edited yes, deleted no. Mactruth (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has become nothing but a flashpoint for intra-Eastern South Slavic diasystem antagonism. And the song itself is nothing to rave about, in all honesty. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RosenkreuzStilette

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

Non-notable, self-created game, according to the reference (I had a Japanese speaker look at it for me). roux   13:46, 22 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 by nominator; excellent rationale provided for keep that I hadn't thought of. //roux   16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Railway Station

Larkana Railway Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Under WP:NOT, really. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and this article is just not encyclopedic. roux   13:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, with a clear need for improvements to the article. Since pretty much every railway station, extant and extinct, in the United Kingdom (and I expect other western countries too) is included in Wikipedia, it seems like there's something not quite right about discounting one from Pakistan which in fact has quite a lot of information. I realise as I write this that my argument is almost a question of whether all the UK ones are notable! So to put it another way, railway stations are fundamentally important to the development of their surrounding communities, so I'd say this article's subject is notable in the context of the Larkana region. – Kieran T (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that. I may well withdraw, pending other comments. //roux   14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the comments made by Kieran T. The article needs a major revamp but there are 100s of railway stations on wikipedia which have not been deleted. (most do seem to be from the UK though, so we must have alot of train fans here :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of content (Speedy A3). If we remove the disputed time-table like content, we're left with a substub that says "the station is located in X and as a booking office." (it's obviously staffed, otherwise a booking office doesn't make sense). And really, having a booking office is not something worthy to note in an article. Pakistani stations can be written about, see Lahore Railway Station, but this one doesn't offer anything. - Mgm|(talk) 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - railway stations have long been accepted as being notable; this page should be expanded not deleted. I also have no problem with the 'Services' section. If its good enough for London King's Cross railway station#Services its good enough for here. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 22 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June Lewis

June Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View 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 keep. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Regenerative Cyclone Engine

Heat Regenerative Cyclone Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (and extremely dubious from an engineering POV) commercial product. No references, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge I don't dispute that the article needs a lot of work, but it does seem to show an interesting new technology, and it does appear to be going into production (see ref I just added to article). If this cannot remain on its own page, perhaps the content can be merged with External combustion engine? (I have no links with the company, merely an interest in steam engines in general, and this seems like an interesting new application of steam technology.) EdJogg (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) just found another reference (added to article) to show that this engine has also won several awards. Yes the article is in a state, but I think deletion is premature. EdJogg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as covert spam, unless it can be drastically rewritten before the end of this AfD. BradV 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Market Watch, published by the WSJ is a Reliable Source, and a major article there about the company is sufficient, and is sufficient evidence for the awards. With the awards, there is no possible question about notability. Spammy articles get rewritten, not deleted. The Motor Trend article confirms it. Market Wire is another matter entirely--its just a publication service for unaltered press releases and has no more importance than the company's own site--I can't figure out why Google News includes it. DGG (talk) 02:12, 28 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight rid(d)er

Knight rid(d)er (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing on google or the artist's MySpace regarding this album. Doesn't seem to exist. roux   13:08, 22 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. Mgm|(talk) 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers

Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mistakenly as G4 repost (wasn't discussed under this title at least). Still deleteable because it doesn't assertain the film's notability (films don't appear to be included in speedy criterion A7) Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Institut Teknologi Bandung. MBisanz talk 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbm itb

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

Rejected as WP:CSD#G11(Blatant advertising) reasonable attempt to clean the article up, questionable as to whether this faculity is independently notable Gnangarra 12:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability of the school stems from its controversial founding, since the university has always been a 'tech' based Uni. i'm having trouble finding appropriate references to back this up, however, aside from some blogposts in Indonesian. basically, to most Indonesian, ITB is the MIT of Indonesia, and now it opens a business school (much like Sloan-MIT), breaking the tradition of ITB's research-based ways. will continue to update throughout the week, including history, areas of study, etc.A.yoga (talk) 01:24, 24 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Audition

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

Looks completely non-notable, self-promotion. I'm also concerned by the 2007 tag... either the tag was copied from another article, or this is a recreation of a deleted one. roux   12:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Since the tag was added in an edit by the initial page author, as part of the first substantial edit, 24 minutes after page creation, I'd guess it was an inadvertent copy. MadScot (talk) 15:43, 22 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Lee Hiles

Dustin Lee Hiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person does not meet the nobility requirements for wikipedia. An extensive search has turned up no independent references. Nrswanson (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why didn't you speedy him? Anyway, only 60 results came up on google when searched. Definitely WP:NN Dengero (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because the entry makes the claim he performed in several operas, something that doesn't neccesarily have to be recorded in electrons. I'd check newspaper sources, before forming an opinion. The web sources (mainly facebook) are not independent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's pretty obvious the 'resume' is padded, otherwise he would have specified the roles sung. I've checked the cast lists for the performances listed in the article and there's no mention of him. If he was in them at all he was in the chorus. Note that virtually all the productions mentioned are with semi-professional companies, youth programs, opera workshops, or student productions. Filumena at the Banff Centre is just one example. When I edited the article to remove the hype, I edited out the statement: "At twenty years old, Dustin has been hailed as "Canada's next great opera star" by Canadian Idol judge, Sass Jordan" If he's only twenty years old and already singing leading roles with leading companies, and widely considered to be "Canada's next great opera star" he'd be in the press somewhere, and these are all I found [37] [38]. I've searched under both Dustin Hiles and Dustin Lee Hiles both with and without quotes and Google News all dates. I also have access to specialist opera publications - nothing. Incidentally there is no mention of him on the Canadian Idol web site either. If he was in it, it must have been a local heat. I also left this message on the creator's talk page [39], alerting him/her to the problems with the article but nothing has been done to address the issues. I wish Hiles well in his chosen career, but he doesn't really have one yet, and certainly not a notable one.Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Voceditenore's excellent research. - Mgm|(talk) 15:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Probably someday when he has made his profesional debut (leading role), the article starter can recreate again. Btw, his voice is not bad, tho. - Jay (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing more to say than Voceditenore allready said. abf /talk to me/ 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For all reasons listed above BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List_of_Marilyns_in_England#Devon_and_Cornwall . MBisanz talk 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marilyns in Cornwall

AfDs for this article:
List of Marilyns in Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The content is already listed on List of Marilyns in England. Cornwall is not a separate country in the same way that England, Scotland, Wales, etc. are. If the all of the English counties were split into separate pages, we would have dozens of separate lists each with only a few entries. That's not helpful. ras52 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A county column is a good suggestion — I'm sure we can work that into the page. —ras52 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect - As suggested by MacGyver above.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was very afraid this was a list of women named Marilyn who lived in some geographic unit, and was greatly relieved that a "Marilyn" is a small hill. Why not refer to them as "hills" for better comprehension by English speakers worldwide? This is apparently a neologism in response to hills somewhere else being called "Munros," and a play on Marilyn Monroe. Hills 150 meters (482 feet) high are as common as dirt around the world, so as to be non-notable. In fact, I own one. Edison (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify, hills satisfying the criteria for Marilyns are not especially common in England — there are only 180 of them, 84% of which have Wikipedia articles. The fact that they are unusually prominent hills by English standards is what makes the notable; no-one is disputing that if they were situated in the Himalaya, they would not be notable. Also, as Lugnuts hints at, the Marilyns are not simply hills that are 150 m high—they rise 150 m above the surrounding countryside, which is something quite different. (See topographic prominence for a discussion on how to rigorously define "rising 150 m above their surroundings".) —ras52 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

WNYT (internet radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, the reason was No indication of why this internet radio stream is notable. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 11:09, 22 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rein Weiss Ritter

Rein Weiss Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kusuha Mizuha

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festenia Muse

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persönlichkeit

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh Presty

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingram Prisken

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychodriver

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Blade

R-Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Eins

R-Eins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Gun

R-Gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Recital

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Sword

R-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapiéçage

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

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 22 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. John254 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samden Gyatso

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

Doesn't meet notability standards. This person is no longer active or teaching, and there are very little web references to him. Peaceful5 (talk) 10:23, 22 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. John254 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paid To Click (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a spam/blatant advertising trap. Was tagged for speedy deletion as G11 back in October. [41] I cannot see anything remotely notable or encyclopaedic about this article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Pay per click. It's a perfectly valid subject for an encyclopedia article, but the other article does it better. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:24, 22 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. In addition to the notability and BLP concerns raised, the article is an incredible exercise in soapboxing, going into great detail with respect to this person's authority as a trial expert, and if it were kept, it would likely continue to be misused for that purpose.  Sandstein  17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saami Shaibani

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

Already deleted as speedy (A7). Article goes to great lengths and great detail to promote its subject, but very little evidence offered to back up the claims, and little claim as to why he is notable in the first place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's masses of evidence in the article, including copies of what I can only assume are confidential correspondence. However, the article focuses solely on the negative aspects of this person, which makes it a violation of WP:BLP and a possible G10 speedy delete candidate. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and really weird article too. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is important information on the murder trial of Michael Iver Peterson and David Aesoph. All court documents are public domain. The scans of the Oxford degrees are self-made scans and permission has been granted by email by Dr. Shaibani. This is very important information on the case of Dr. Shaibani. Dr. Saami Shaibani was accused of perjury during the trial of Michael Iver Peterson. It was later discovered that Temple University, in fact, did appointed Dr. Saami Shaibani a Clinical Associate Professor in the Physics Department in 1995. There is more than enough evidence in this article to support its claims. This article does not attack Dr. Shaibani, it simply posts facts and official documents relating to his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Update jvfulcher has been discussing the matter on the talk page, and it appears Saami Shaibani has been an expert witness in a lot of murder trials apart from the two mentioned here, so that may qualify for notability provided this is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. I'm keeping my vote as delete at the moment because I think it would be better to scrap this article and start again from scratch, but with the caveat that if the article is re-created in a form that addresses the notability and neutrality concerns, it can stay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I still think that, even if a passable notability case is established, the current page must be deleted first. It is one giant unsalvageable WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE violation. I would not even be comfortable with the page being blanked since its content would still be availble in the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update This article has gone through a massive change, almost every sentence in the article is referenced from major news outlets (USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and the AP) or Public Domain court documents. The court documents can be obtained by anyone from the Clerk of Court in Hyde County, SD or the Clerk of Court in Durham County, NC. All the documents are public domain, and not confidential. I also have listed the many papers, articles, and patent by Dr. Saami Shaibani. Currently I have 6 criminal murder trials that he has been an expert witness in, some of these trials are being appealed, so they are very notable, high-profile trials. I also changed the article to only present facts from news and court documents, like I said, almost all sentences are referenced. I believe this is a notable, NPOV, and verifible article. Let me know if something needs to be updated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The USA Today article does now suggest that Saami Shaibani does have some notability outside of a single murder trial. However, if the USA Today article[42] is anything to go by, I must advise that once the article is written to accurately reflect all of the third-party sources, it may well end up portraying him in a far less positive light than you hoped for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the most recent event, The David Aesoph Appeal, paints the most recent picture. With that in mind, the press has not done their research on this. The documents I presented exist in the public domain and no news outlet has found this information. The only people to see the documents were people involved in the Aesoph Appeal in Hyde County. All of the third-party sources list two major points: Perjury in the Peterson trial (or padded credentials) and the Plude and O'Brien retrial and appeal, which I just added to the Plude/O'Brien trial section with a reference. There is no reason to relist those points multiple times. The major information is all listed in the article, I didn't include quotes from the AP reporter, Ryan Foley. I only included that there was a trial, Dr. Saami Shaibani was involved, and if there is a retrial or appeal now. The article points out the two valid overall points: 2003 accused of perjury, then in 2006 found to be credible.

With all that said, I know there is always a risk on Wikipedia. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Update Another edit, removed all sentences that are not verified in the court documents, testimonies, or quotes/facts from the actual murder trials. No reporter or press quotes. No editorial spin, just coping and pasting sentences from the courts. All the positives and negatives are included, only listed once each. Was that a vote for keep Chris? Let me know if I have missed something and I will fix it. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of this article appears to be supporting the subject's credibility as an expert witness. This appears to be soapboxing and violating the neutral point of view. It also is lacking in context by failing to clearly describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question in the first place. If this ever were to be an article of decent quality, it would look very different from how it looks now. We would probably be better off deleting this and letting the article be started over once the subject's notability becomes more apparent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Another edit to address Metropolitan90's concerns, moved the highest profile trial (Peterson) to number one position in article. I don't think the article supports one claim more than another now, whether Shaibani is found credible or not. Also added context to describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question during the Peterson trial. Also included references to those said circumstances. A google search returns 773 hits on "saami shaibani" (in quotes), over 9,000 hits on saami shaibani (no quotes). Hits are mostly about Peterson, O'Brien, Plude, and Aesoph trials. I think that notability is there. Should the large list of papers be scaled down? I can understand that point. I don't understand how this is soapboxing. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to understand the notability concerns. From looking at other Wiki articles, such as John H. Smith (mathematician), I think Shaibani is much more notable and has more publications. If the John H. Smith (mathematician) article is classified as WP:PROF, then I should add "formerly of Virginia Tech". His position at Virginia Tech was never questioned in court as well. Suggestions appreciated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't have time to check this in detail right now, but the fact that an article exists on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove the subject is notable - it merely means that no-one has successfully nominated the article for deletion yet. However, the issue of notability doesn't matter now. I think there's little doubt that Saami Shaibani qualifies as notable (just not necessarily the thing he'd like to be notable for). The issue now is whether this article is appropriate coverage in Wikipedia, particularly Neutral Point of View. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article reads neutral.74.4.251.76 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, with some real reluctance, because this article is going to be a pain. jvfulcher, you're going to have to accept that this article is about to undergo some drastic changes; other editors here will not allow it to remain in its current state. To prepare yourself for what is about to happen, I strongly suggest you read the following: WP:OWN, WP:NOR, WP:V, and for good measure (especially in relation to formatting references) WP:MOS. In any event, I agree with Chris Neville-Smith that it is now clear he is notable by the usual standard (though certainly not by WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was expecting that it would need some help. I would encourage you to read (or skim) the 26 page, Aesoph appeal. This is the most recent court document available on Shaibani. At least the article is getting closer and a keep vote. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 27 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 Not delete.. Whether to merge or not can be worked out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPMforge

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

Not particularly notable Oscarthecat (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at minimum redirect to a page which explicitly explains the purpose and merits of each of the addon repositories for RedHat. I believe rpmforge is the most notable of them. A simple redirect to Fedora would leave the user little wiser. Also note the repository is important for Red Hat, CentOS and Scientific Linux, not merely the Fedora subset. It seems that rpmforge is being subsumed into something called rpmrepo, but the relations between the projects is badly explained. Wikipedia can provided a useful independant reference here.

Vicarage (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maschetti

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

Hoax article. PROD removed by author without explanation. Google hasn't heard of this manufacturer. DAJF (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason and recommend that the author be cautioned or blocked for creation of hoax articles:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor, Nina, Sonja and Misja

Viktor, Nina, Sonja and Misja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A book? Maybe merge to Death and the Penguin or delete The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we'd have to retain the history for attribution purposes...
Good point. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:30, 22 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) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet stuttering

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

Almost certainly a hoax. —Bkell (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the reference correctly, it is referring to prolonged-speech resources mentioned in the Speak Easy Association's newsletter and on the Stuttering Home Page (on the Internet) located here. I don't think it's referring to the alleged phenomenon described in this article. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in Hot 100

2008 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

2008 in Hot 100 hasn't been updated since July and pretty much is a copy of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States), similar articles were deleted back in June (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100) ---Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating the following article:[reply]

2007 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) see Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (United States)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmusic.com

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

Non-notable website. No reliable sources available (as far as I have been able to find). COI advertisement. Maybe worth a mention on the DeviantArt page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 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. Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayard Bridge

Bayard Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River).
  • Crystal Ball speculation as to the "probably" low-importance in the future is not a proper Wikipedia method to decide notability. While you might not think this bridge is important, it actually was important enough for secondary sources to write in-depth articles about it. Not only can a 125 foot bridge be notable, but a 25 foot bridge can be too. Length has absolutely nothing to do with notability. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I'm not sure that your comment about WP:CRYSTAL really applies here - that deals with prediction of future events. That's not what we're debating. We're discussing if this bridge is notable and unique enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Based on what has been developed in this article over the least 2 years, the only discussion in the newspaper articles as being of the difficulty in finding replacement funding until 25 years after the bridge was closed, and the extremely rural low-traffic nature of the area[2], I don't see that this bridge justifies an article on its own. As part of a larger article about Bayard or bridges of the Upper North Branch Potomac, maybe. Brian Powell (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Named bridges over named rivers are notable. For a bridge of even this size, there will always be sufficient sourced material to write an article. For all the other bridges Bmpowell alludes to, let's have articles--WP is NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an officially named bridge, hense a 'place'. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "Bayard" in the name is not really an official name, per se. It just refers to the closest town, Bayard, West Virginia. This is standard practice for referring to bridges in West Virginia. Brian Powell (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nom's concerns re: WP:N have been satisfied by sources provided. It does not matter whom considers it "a minor bridge" (as others surely will not) if there are reliable secondary sources. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:20, 25 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River)

Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayard Bridge.
The problem here is that there's nothing to say about this bridge. There's no sources and the article only really states the location, nothing about design, use and historical significance. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 27 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. Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Queen

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

Not quite A7 material, but not notable either. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom ѕwirlвoy ₪ 06:00, 22 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. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rose Gedris

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

Last nom was closed no consensus. This person continues to not pass WP:N - the three blog and advert sites listed in her article are not reliable sources, and the only RS is the Curve (magazine) piece, which is only ~450 words. One fluff piece does not qualify for "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources". SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only is that piece about her and her work, she is being interviewed by that source. The issue of 1st vs 3rd person pertains to verification of article content, not notability. An interview is in fact being the subject of a secondary source, which directly pertains to notability. 462 words is far beyond "passing mention" or "directory listing." --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is really nothing in that interview that one can write a biography from. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:39, 27 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bifranchise

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

While somewhat subtle (well, as far as these things go), this amounts to either a neologism, a "up and coming" "philosophical movement", or a somewhat clever means to promote the "founding company", one "Global Importex Access, LTD". Google returns exactly one result for "BiFranchise" as a single word, and as two words (or a hyphenated word) the vast majority (read: "all") of the results are utilizing the word in a different capacity. Bottom line: it's non-notable six ways from Sunday, Googlewhack or not. Badger Drink (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like spam to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Bkell (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost City of Malathedra

The Lost City of Malathedra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. Lacks coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Nikić

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

A non-fully professional player in Greek Third division Matthew_hk tc 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General rule is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, personally i think Beta Ethniki meet the requirement but not for a player spent his whole senior career at a third division. Matthew_hk tc 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Secondly the article without source support. Matthew_hk tc 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:01, 22 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.

Colin Meon

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable music producer, that fails WP:BIO together with WP:NM. Possible hoax/vandalism page, none of the external sources mention the subject. Flewis(talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there really such a need for "more thorough discussion" in this case? The article was created as a result of a botched copy & paste move by an inexperienced editor. It is therefore a (now out-of-date) duplicate of the CLSM article. While making it a redirect to CLSM initially seemed to be the best option, as explained above, the connection with this band cannot be verified at present, and so deletion appears to be the only option. If Colin Meon can be verified as the name of a person involved in this group, surely it will be simple enough to create a redirect from that name in the future? --DAJF (talk) 10:11, 22 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library

Folsom Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While there are ghits and news hits, they appear limited to the following: 1) library closure notifications 2) events at the library and 3) voting issues, none of which establish notability for the library. Some of the text, i.e. The age, design and limited space of the building no longer sustain the needs of our city’s growing community. appears to be a copyvio but it may be offline as I can't find the source. StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. I suspect that the reason the county library's branch was closed was California's Proposition 13 which put limits on local taxes and led to significant cutbacks in local government services. The references show significant coverage, and more can probably be found. It would be helpful to have information about the library's special collections and whether the library's buildings have won any awards. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the references show nothing of notability, local coverage of issues related to funding and expansion. Ones that I'd venture a guess are issues every library faces. I know local ones in two places I've lived have had similar issues and they're not notable either. Closed or not doesn't matter, it doesn't get notability for having been closed. I wold agree that if it's buildings won any awards it might be notable, but I found no evidence of that being the case. StarM 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me. Could certainly be improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We dont have clear practices here. In general any library will have many inconsequential newspaper or web notices, dealing with events taking place there, and the periodic bond issue as tax rate approvals. --but they don't really speak to notability. In a range of inconsistent decisions here, usually city library systems are notable, as are large country systems. Town libraries usually not. (And obviously any particular library can be notable for some reason as an exception, just like anything else.)i On the other hand, if people want to interpret this broadly, on the basis that libraries are intrinsically so important that almost any established one is notable on the basis of its importance to the education of the community, I can't see how a librarian like me would object to it--but, honestly, I don't think we've reached that degree of public understanding quite yet, although I'm pleased to see so many wikipedians think so. :).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:43, 22 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. Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pssh

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

Contested prod. In short, I don't think it meets the notability guideline. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 03:08, 22 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 keep. 4 unanimous keep votes, and notability is not temporary. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 09:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshine, Illinois

Moonshine, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nom and opine...
...Del. We have a long-standing practice (since a bot was run around 5-6 years ago to create them) of documenting every census designated place in the US Census. This is a place -- but not a CDP. It is not a town, village, or borough, but apparently a store-cum-residence plus outhouse that would have gotten a dot on a map during the seven years that the building was a post office, and presumably every mapmaker over the 130 years since it stopped handling mail has felt obliged. The only people living in this "place" own it. Apparently a national TV reporter liked the burger or conversation they got there, and did a local-color piece in, uh, Sunday morning Prime Time. IMO terminally non-notable.

Full disclosure: There are 5 articles for US places this size, and 5 smaller (pop. 1) -- and some that have no population -- but all of them appear to be CDPs. The one i'm familiar with probably sleeps on the order of hundreds before winter closes its dirt roads to all but snow machines and maybe some timber trucks, and has numerous people gainfully employed in it, in two distinct industries -- trash burial and lumbering.

--Jerzy•t 03:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If the place was notable once (as it clearly would have been when the building was a post office and consequently a center of commerce), then it does not stop being notable even if the population drops to zero. The idea that notability does not expire is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's definition of notability. But apart from that, the news coverage makes it notable. Consider this paragraph from Living History:Moonshine, Illinois : "In early 2004, CBS Sunday morning program even featured the store, with film clips from the early gathering of locals for coffee at 6AM, all the way through the noon guests of this eatery. During the hour and a half show, many "teaser" clips kept building the story of the reporter's quest to find this location in the wilderness." And GNIS has a listing at U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Moonshine, Illinois-- Eastmain (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far I can comprehend, the nom just throws up red herring arguments. Just because a place is not a census designated place doesn't mean it's not notable. A place can be notable for many other reasons. Being featured on the national CBS News Sunday Morning show, featured prominently in at least one book [46], very extensively in this online article and even featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune [47][48] demonstrates passing WP:NOTABILITY. That the nom doesn't like the reason it passes WP:NOTABILITY ("a national TV reporter liked the burger or conversation they got there") does absolutely nothing to change its notability. I should also point out that historic towns and cities are still notable for historic reasons.--Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are many places that dont have post offices and low population. The town I live in and haved lived in my whole life doesn't have an exact population, is unincorporated, and no post office Meadows, Illinois. There are several websites that refer to it and when I go thru it again I will provide a picture as I see one is being requested. The beauty of Wikipedia is the fact that you can search extremely unknown towns and learn about them. If we keep eliminating everything that isn't big and well known, we will lose alot of our heritage. And that would be sad. If it would appease you, I will re-write this, as it was one of my first wiki pages I created and probably is pretty crude.Stangboy7 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This place has been notable, as indicated by the references in the article; it is notable partly because of the attention it has received, which in turn is partly because of its extremely small population. In a nutshell, it's a special place. Even if it ceased to exist entirely, it would still be notable in a historical sense, and from my perspective Wikipedia has a substantial historical component. Omnedon (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Well (church)

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

Non-notable church. Only one reliable source, and that just says that it exists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I volunteered to rewrite this article after a previous version by another editor was deleted as G11. Clearly, the self-promotional issues that doomed the earlier article were removed here. What remains now is a decent little stub. The article passes WP:RS without problem, and the Knight-Ridder news article cites it as being prominent within the emerging church movement. Its notability for its off-beat setting and services are also clearly cited in the media coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently passes WP:N. Unlike the nom's stipulation, the Knight Ridder Newspapers article goes far beyond "it exists." Curiously, this is the nom's only argument to delete this article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly per Ecoleetage. The sources show exactly how this is notable, such as the Knight-Ridder news articles of the emerging church movement, so there is no reason to delete. Easily passes notability. – RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable church. Maybe we should add every church, business, store, 7-eleven, just to be fair?--T*85 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can provide an explanation of your !vote...just to be fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on the response, Eco :P. T85:While we shouldn't add "every" church, if you look at WP:CHURCH itself most churches are notable. In keeping with the fact that AfD is a discussion rather than a vote, maybe you could cite some policy? A Slippery slope argument hardly helps.Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the refs given, under WP:CHURCH:1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no, 6. no, 7. no, 8. no, 9. no, 10. no, 11. no --T*85 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHURCH is an essay. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask for reasoning and policy Per T*85. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask for ref to back up claim of being notable under guideline 4 per Ironholds --T*85 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MQS. The Bradenton Herald coverage is also part of the Knight-Ridder news syndicate, which means this article received national news coverage in the U.S. For those who did not read it, the article is about the emerging church movement and The Well was the first church cited in the article -- not exactly non-notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 22 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 comments in this AFD Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party (United States of America)

Independent Party (United States of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unregistered party. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:34, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength in Numbers (Disturbing tha Peace album)

Strength in Numbers (Disturbing tha Peace album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM, no significant coverage on the album. Allmusic says it was released in June 2007, but is yet to be released and has no sources verifying that it will be released next month DiverseMentality 01:29, 22 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. nomination withdrawn Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go (Trick Daddy song)

AfDs for this article:
Let's Go (Trick Daddy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable, no references whatsoever, little to no content, no distinct information given. Dengero (talk) 01:19, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinglonesian

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

A Google search on 'Chinglonesian -wikipedia' only has 10 results, some of which are just copies of this article. So it seems to be both non-notable and not verifiable by reliable sources. Marcoscramer (talk) 01:12, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NXgen Designs

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

Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. Google search for the company name brings up 99 results, of which 37 are "unique". I can't find much about the game "Road to Ascension" either (even the article admits that there was not much reception). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is reasonable to assume game design companies to have an online presence. This one doesn't, not even under the old name and every half-notable games design company releases their games through a game aggregating site like Newgrounds -- not Myspace. Doesn't seem to have created any press or cult following. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 22 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) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Maniar

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

Uncertain claim of notability ("several . . . columns for . . . well-known . . . Newspapers" could mean several regular columns, or several guest appearances), but weak at best. References insufficient.

Also appears to be a CoI. Bongomatic 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arev Armenian Folk Ensemble

Arev Armenian Folk Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on google seems to help. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google isn't the only place to find sources. Google drops links that go dead and it's quite possible that something from 2004 can't be readily found online without searching archives. The mention of a nomination for a reward that has existed for 10 years is enough to make an effort and search LexisNexis and dead tree sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 22 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) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirits Rowing

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

There's no evidence this rowing club is notable. I am explicitly not in favor of a merge to Concept2's page as I don't think the company is the right place to discuss every indoor rowing club. I also don't know that the unverified claim that it was the largest indoor rowing club registered with Concept2 is a sufficient claim to notability. StarM 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the most entirely non-notable thing I have seen as it does seem to be an active group (for example the forum has around 40K posts) but this group has yet to be significantly mentioned in any reliable sources. There are less than two pages of unique Google Results for "Free Spirits Rowing". Icewedge (talk) 01:38, 27 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.. lifebaka++ 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Affair of the Necklace (disambiguation)

The Affair of the Necklace (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary dab page. Both secondary items are WP:DAB#Partial_title_matches. Also, the historical event is already linked in the main film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ossoble Adde

Mohamed Ossoble Adde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same creator as Abukar Omarsson below with same problem, unsourced with great claims to notability but trying to sources leads to it appearing to be a hoax parading as a valid article. –– Lid(Talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Leckwith Development. SoWhy 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Retail Park

Capital Retail Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What makes this retail park any more notable than the hundreds of others in the UK? More than enough is mentioned in the New Cardiff City stadium article. As it is, the article seems little more than an advert. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: Capital Retail Park

I feelthat this page should stay because it provides relevant information about the retail park which is being built. This retail park does not really have much to do wit the CCFC/Blues stadium and is part of a development to improve Leckwith. The new staium page should not mention in detail and should have a link to the retail park page instead. I don't feel that this is an advertisement as the status column shows the development as it progresses. Your point about other retail parks in the UK is valid, however I live in Cardiff and am writing about a retail park that I use and lso live near. It is up to people who live near the retail parks (and also other features in the town/city) to make/edit the articles. I feel tat it should stay but would follow any suggestions you might have to improve the page.

Thanks, Lwebdan (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)</[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Noize Tour

Strange Noize Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on non-notable promotional album. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 22 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Brolly

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

Makeup artist for a handful of productions. Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. There doesn't appear to be any sources for a biographical article available...only the 5-10 credits as a makeup artist and/or hair stylist. Contested prod. Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being the makeup artist for 8 movies does not fulfill the requirements for bios of entertainers or actors. No evidence of significant awards, or notability demonstrated from third party sources, or that she has made groundbreaking advances in her field, therfore fails WP notability requirements, and should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should it fulfill these requirements. A makeup artist is neither an entertainer nor an actor. I believe other rules apply, though I have not found which those would be yet. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordis (band)

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

Reads like a puff piece, seems to fail notability for WP:Music Blowdart | talk 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless verifiable sources are found, it's not going to stay.--Michig (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Kulkarni

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

This is a speedy I declined because it seems to assert some notability. Some editors from India may be better able to ascertain notability but it is missing proper references at present. JodyB talk 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 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. SoWhy 09:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad B

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

I declined this speedy because it seems to assert notability. It seems this performer may be close to breaking into notability but doesn't seem to be there quite yet. I leave to the community to determine. JodyB talk 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to World Sport Overnight. SoWhy 09:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Couch (sports broadcaster)

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

fails WP:BIO. Limited coverage in Google news search. simply being a media manager or presenter is not notable enough. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 22 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. Already deleted by Werdna. (non admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euthymophobia

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

Upon web searches, it seems to be original research. The outro looks spam-ish; not sure if this is an alright article, so I'm taking this to AfD. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. — Werdna • talk 00:31, 22 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.
  1. ^ http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=54&struct=00000000012A065
  2. ^ http://www.wvdot.com/3_ROADWAYS/RP/TA%20Traffic%20files/VCnt/grant105.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_22&oldid=254328196"