Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:24, 8 March 2008

< March 1	March 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus to delete; whether or not to merge can be discussed at article talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X Culture Magazine

Non-notable magazine, few to no reliable sources. Halo (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sally Bishai since she started the magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant Editor-in-Chief, seem to be sources available. --Oldak Quill 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful article, can be sourced. - cohesion 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect 630 ghits, with a few blog posts, but nothing on Google news. This can be redirected to the article of the creator for the time being, until it proves to be more notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Of the paltry 34 unique Ghits, the lead one is the magazine's website, the next few are the Wikipedia article, Wiki mirrors, Bishai's own Cafepress huckster page, etc. Rather than there "seem[s] to be sources avaible," there is not a single hit from a reliable source about this website (I decline to call it a "magazine" when it isn't really a magazine), and most of the hits mention it only in passing as part of Bishai's resume. If it indeed can be sourced, I invite any editors who feel they can to do so. RGTraynor 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Anybody who wants to merge it can do so. If disputed, the merge can be discussed on the talk page of the article. — CharlotteWebb 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Airport Services Limited

Seems to fail WP:CORP Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major copyedit or merge into Dragonair. This article's content seems to revolve around the people in the corporation rather than the corporation itself. I agree that it does not have enough notability, but it does seem like a standard stub if the links to people and their business competitors are removed. however, if it is to be deleted, then at least this subsidiary should be listed in the main Dragonair article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr. Tai or to Hong Kong International Airport. There's not enough substance in the article even to justify a stub. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to say merge into HKG, but the nature of the article would probably only warrant maybe one sentence in the airport's structures section, in comparison to the Dragonair article it could elaborate the lounge's services and describe business partners in more than a sentence. But either way, this article needs to merge with one of these two articles. It fails WP:CORP pretty bad. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable, independent sources available for this subject (e.g. [1]) --Oldak Quill 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that doesn't really look like it's independent: it seems to be an add. It also doesn't amount to sigificant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The Baggage and cargo facilities section in the Hong Kong International Airport article is a good place for some of this content. The wholly owned subsidiary is not really notable independently of the airport that owns it. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BigBellyFilm

Also included in this nomination:

Another series of articles on a film company by one creator whose sole claim to fame is awards won at possible insignificant film festivals whose articles were created by the same user (see here for my last nomination of a similar series by this user). No news coverage. Only Ghits are to user driven sites (Myspace, IMDB, YouTube, etc.) and their official web site. No secondary sources. No reason to believe this company, their employees, and their films are at all notable. Articles fail WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MOVIE. Redfarmer (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I left a note at the possibly misguided editors talk. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unverifiable info, failing all sorts of notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable.Renee (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Does not appear notable, when I read the articles I feel like it's a series of advertisements. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet in Latvia

Blatant advertising Dreamspy (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but clean up and expand. I'm working with an almost non-existent knowledge of internet services in Latvia, but, as it is a small country, I'm interpreting the article to mean that said company in article is near-exclusive purveyor of internet services in Latvia. Is notable as a subject. Redfarmer (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good sources not hard to find. I added two, for example. cab (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now the article has been rewritten and no longer looks like an advertisement. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to rewriting. Dreamspy (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy revolution

Very unclear, article does not associate with the title, and it is on Greenpeace anyway. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soon as possible - NPOV. Deb (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is a POV essay which looks like it was dumped in from some other source. It certainly is not an encyclopaedia article. It is also unclear and badly written. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the basic idea of the article is to link greenpeace to development cooperation... it is best to work on modifying this document rather than outrightly deleting it. it will create a healthy debate on the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkaambe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — Orkaambe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I think the comment above should be interpreted as a "keep" although I can't agree with it. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "create a healthy debate". This is an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsalvageable essay with confusing/misleading title. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. Wiki is not a soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Select (SQL). There was a clear consensus that the subject is encyclopaedic. However, no convincing evidence was presented that this could ever be more than a stub. A merge looks a generally acceptable action. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Window function (SQL)

It doesn't give any information on the topic, very difficult to understand, needs more attention if it should stay on Wikipedia. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not arguments under the WP deletion policy. Do you claim that the subject is not substantive enough that it can become a non-stub article? --Macrakis (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on notable subject per WP:RUBBISH -Halo (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Select (SQL) for now. The subject is valid but in general we haven't been writing single articles for every SQL clause and keyword. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with ~~Select (SQL)~~ is OK with me, but I think there is more to say about Window functions than there is about where (SQL), having (SQL), group by (SQL), and other Category:SQL keywords.... --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Select (SQL) -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Creating a section within an established article can attract some slightly more encylopedic writing, as opposed to code and technical terms. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luv Sawngz

Page fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Cloudz679 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. i originally prod'ded this as failing WP:CRYSTAL and a lack of reliable sources (based on a throwaway comment in a forum interview). tomasz. 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation based on references of dubious reliability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to satyr, planescape or anything else that seems appropriate I'll leave to those who have a view on which/what it should redirect to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bariaur

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. ~~Minimal~~ Moderate in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least nom didn't claim that it was from a minor supplement (both supplements I've seen it in are Planescape's 3E/3.5 reincarnations). If there is an article on creatures similar (i.e. quadrupedal sheep/man hybrid or somesuch), add a mention there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really incorrect to claim "minimal in-game coverage". They've appeared in a large number of sources: sourcebooks, novels, and I believe at least one videogame. If that's a major factor for the AFD, that's a big problem. It does need some 3rd party coverage, but I'm very tempted to say that it does exist if we look for it. I think the AFD is quite premature on this one.Shemeska (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Redirect into Planescape - was a major player character race throughout the Planescape setting, appeared in numerous products. Was also featured pre-Planescape in 2nd edition Monstrous Compenium 8: Outer Planes, and has appeared in 3E in (if memory serves) the Manual of the Planes. BOZ (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also shows up in Planar Handbook as a race in 3.5. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or potentially Redirect per BOZ. They've appeared in a dozen or so 2e sourcebooks, and multiple novels during that period, and they've appeared in a pair of 3E sourcebooks.

...all of which mean bupkus if there are no 3rd-party sources. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. All Primary Sources. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/no real-world impact. Eusebeus (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pervasive within the AD&D setting it came from, featured in several of the Planescape novels, very definitely qualifies for a specizalized encyclopedia. Eithin (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. I don't think that's possible for almost anything in the D&D world. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. just a variation of a Satyr as noted in the article itself. shadzar-talk 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gathra

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appeared in one supplement. No evidence of any real notability. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energon (Dungeons & Dragons)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage or in-game significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to Cybertron. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. Mere primary sources. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to... good lord, some dungeons & dragons creature list. There are enough of them that this could find a happy home somewhere. The notability factor is too much to over come in this instance. Mstuczynski (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the lists would accept this; otherwise I'd've suggested it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier)} 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Gavin Collins and Percy Snoodle. It's not apparently possible to expand this beyond a simple in-universe summary - and according to WP:RPG/N, (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - can you find sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say for certain that such evidence does not or will not exist. Considering how many thousands of books have been written on Dungeons & Dragons, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that someone could not eventually find sufficient sourcing for sub-articles like this one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They may or may not feature in any more D&D books, but that doesn't make them notable. They have recieved no third party coverage, and our article could not be expanded beyond an in-universe description, which is not a valid article. They have no real significance within the D&D world, unless they hold pride of place within a setting with which I am unfamiliar. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ditto Milburn. Citrouilles, D&D is a paper and pen role-playing game and as such, any search for books on D&D will invariably yield first-party sources in the form of the masses of supplements, accessories, and such released for the game by Wizards of the Coast. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone believes them notable enough to have made an articles and others agreed enough to work on the article. I am not convinced with certainty that sources do not exist for them or that eliminating this information, which does have some sources benefits our project in any way. Having sub-articles for larger topics is fine and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Thus, the articles passes The First Pillar of Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Should we have articles on every aspect of every fictional universe then, provided someone wishes to work on them? We cannot source articles from primary sources. This article fails verifiability, lacks reliable sources, and will struggle to be written from the NPOV without original research, due to the sourcing issues. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I see no reason why we shouldn't have so many articles on fictional universes provided editors want to work on them. We're an online encyclopedia gaining new users practically every minute. The article passes verfiability guidelines and has reliable primary sources, which are perfectly fine with encyclopedic tradition. If you look at original copies of Britannica or the Encyclopedie, you'll find many articles that start out as primary source based until eventual secondary sources could be find. Those paper encyclopedia have had hundreds of years to evolve. We have been around for I believe less than a decade. By just presenting information from primary sources and not expressing on opinion on it, the article has a neutral point of view. By not making an argument, the article does not refelect original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not considered a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - what i need to type out the same thing everyone else has said on each AfD? sorry if you don't like it but i voted and gave a reason. would it be better if i just voted with no reason for my vote? shadzar-talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because notability is a vague and not agreed upon expression, we do not consider it a compelling reason to delete something. What's not notable to one person is notable to others and so it is just further proof that the article should be kept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability, on Wikipedia, is having a substantial number of reliable sources- enough to write at least a short article. This has none. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not concvinced that given time sources couldn't be found from the wealth of D&D material out there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, and if those sources come up, the article can be recreated. We don't keep articles on bands that 'will have sources someday', we don't keep articles on scientific theories we can find no sources for. Why should this be any different? I am proposing that this text be deleted; not that we ban talking about the monster. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then it would be much more considerate to editors who are looking for such sources to redirect the article without deleting it, so that when sources are found, then they can be added to the old version of the article, rather than forcing the source finder(s) to start all over again. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is working on it, as far as I know, and no one apart from you is under the impression that reliable, third party sources could be found, and there is nowhere to redirect to. I repeat, this is not the treatment that would be given to any other article on something super-trivial, why should it be here? In any case, users are welcome to contact me (or one of many others) and get a copy of the article emailed to them or placed in their userspace. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone above has suggested merging to a Dungeons & Dragons character list. If nothing else, a redirect to Dungeons & Dragons that keeps the previous drafts of the article in its history in tact could be a reasonable compromise for now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no list that this fits into. A redirect to the main D&D article would be rightfully deleted as a useless redirect, and I repeat, that is not the way we do things. Using that logic, we should redirect random MySpace bands to whatever genre of music they claim to play, to keep histories intact. That is not the way we work, for too many reasons to list. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone thought enough to create the article it must be a reasonable search term and so I can't see a redirect as unreasonable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Seeing as you get picky about which arguments are used, see here and here. In any case, you still haven't said why this article about a non notable fictional monster should be treated any differently than an article on a non-notable band. People put the effort in to create them, too. And NO ONE is going to search for this, it's a useless search term- if they were knowledgable enough to search for this to start with, a redirect to D&D is usless. That's like redirecting deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia to Internet. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone created an article on it, then someone would indeed search for the term. I'm not opposed to starting a list of monsters, characters from D&D that these things can be merged and redirected to. As for bands, I'm not entirely sure that it's that bad for Wikipedia not to have articles on them. Notability is just such a fluid concept as far as how our community interprets what that term entails. If it was clear that we had true consensus on notability, we wouldn't have the combination of large article creation and contentious AFDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rilmani

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a few supplements, but no evidence of third party coverage or in-game significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete <SoaD>And what the f*** are YOU?!?!?!</SoaD> -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. All primary sources. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Gavin Collins and Percy Snoodle. It's not apparently possible to expand this beyond a simple in-universe summary - and according to WP:RPG/N, (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ityak-Ortheel

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No real in-game significance, no evidence of third party sources. Article seems reasonably substantial, so feel free to shoot me down on this one, if it is notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable. Nothing but wizards links there. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. Probably should have properly been bundled with Kezef the Chaos Hound AFD. BOZ (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. An article like this with a heavy in-universe perspective treats the fictional narrative as it it were the real thing, but completely ignornes the requirements of WP:WAF for real-world context and sourced analysis. There is no content worth merging or keeping; perhaps BOZ should consider copying this material to a suitable fansite.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Gavin Collins and Percy Snoodle. It's not apparently possible to expand this beyond a simple in-universe summary - and according to WP:RPG/N, (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. I especially dislike the Fiend Folio-style silly name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only valid arguments to keep this article are based on WP:CRYSTAL, i.e., what he will do in the next future. As we cannot predict the future, notability guidelines for athletes and footballers easily overcome this. In case he will actually play a game in a fully professional league, please knock on my talk page and I will easily restore it. --Angelo (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Iro

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (friendly games do not count towards the criteria). Article has been deleted twice already following uncontested prods for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet to make a first-team appearance so non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE, college football in the US is not professional. The article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. English peasant 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not weighing in on the current situation at hand, but I'd just like a somewhat reasonable explanation why MANY other MLS 2008 SuperDraft players have pages when they're in the exact same situation as Iro (bar Lapira's international experience).GauchoDude (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. See here (reg req), here (reg req), here (reg req), here, here, here etc. Also, someone explain my previous question posted right about this before deletion please kthanks. In before "Note that past AfD closures made prior to the development of these criteria (5/2/2008) cannot be used as precedents for keeping articles" as my talk page clearly shows that myself and пﮟოьεԻ 57 talked about Iro's page before alllll of the other MLS 2008 SuperDraft pages before the huge FootyProject Debate. Iro was blatantly left off the epic American/Euro fight to the death and has therefore resulted in multiple deletions. tl;dr - show me what any 2008 superdraft player aside from Lapira has done to note significance, while still hold pages while Iros has been deleted multiple times GauchoDude (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for voting keep. All those players clearly failed WP:BIO and it was a shocking decision to keep them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but all the sources about him surely should be a reason to keep since he's notable. Seems like you're picking on poor Andy Iro because you failed to include him in your original argument when it should have been. And besides, since then Luke Sassano, David Roth, and Danleigh Borman (who wasn't even drafted in the freaking SuperDraft) all have pages yet, your Nazi regime leaves them untouched. Get off Iro's balls already as it is clear you have a grudge or some other harbored resentment for him. In b4 you put AfD's on them like you did last time I pointed this out with all your other failed MLS deletions.GauchoDude (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling me a Nazi is hardly aiding your cause and saying that I have a grudge against him seems a little paranoid. I didn't include Andy Iro in the original AfD because his prod was not contested so there was no reason to. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the letter of the law, does he pass Wikipedia's notability guideline? Maybe, maybe not. But Columbus plays their first game of the season in exactly two weeks. He will almost certainly get on the field, if not be in the starting eleven. I don't think we ought to delete something on a technicality when it is just going to recreated a couple weeks later. Perfect example of when to use common sense. faithless (^speak) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd say your comment is a perfect example of crystal balling. If he makes an appearance for Columbus then the article can be undeleted. At the moment, all we can say is that he has potential, but potential does not confer notability. robwingfield ^«T•C» 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I'd say, indeed I did say, that this is a fine example of when to ignore that rule. faithless (^speak) 10:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MLS and US soccer has a different structure in many ways than the structure in most other countries -- namely that youth development organizations are completely independent from professional clubs. Most of the players in the MLS SuperDraft have enough talent to have made first-team debuts if they had been in a traditional European set-up. I agree with faithless in saying it's worth it to keep them around for a few weeks. If a few guys fall through the cracks, never play, don't sign a contract, etc -- by all means let's delete them. But I don't think an aggressive deletionist policy is appropriate in this sense. --Balerion (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no harm to keep it up for 2 weeks. If he does not start, then 86 it. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Welbeck

Contested PROD. Notability faliure: Player has not played at professional level, therefore fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE (friendly matches and youth internationals do not count under either set of criteria and having a squad number does not confer notability) English peasant 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. He can have an article when he makes a competitive first team appearance. Until then, there remains the possibility that he will never play. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's reasoning Bardcom (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the previous AfD was only a month ago and the result was Keep, I'm surprised that this has come up again so soon. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware ot the first nom until after I proded it and was halfway throught the AfD process after the prod tag was removed. It does look like the previous AfD was closed by !Vote counting rather than consideration of the debate since several of the keep votes rely WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ILIKEIT and/or a misundertanding of WP:ATHLETE. Another development since the prevoius nom is the development of consensus based guidelines for WP:FOOTY/Notability, which this article also fails. I hope this answers your query as to why I listed it for deletion again. English peasant 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline, it is only an essay, and has not been accepted by the wider community. John Hayes^talk 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails our notability criteria and my own examination of sources say that nothing out there beats what is already on the page. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as creator. I've finally given up trying to justify it. Doesn't meet any notability. crassic\^talk 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5th and columbia

Non-notable until it's built. ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info about this tower yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed? Bah. Delete it now; build it, and we will come. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all of us will come to the dedication. There's something unexciting about being the fifth tallest building in Seattle. It's going to be 43 stories tall. Of course, if they make it 44 stories tall, that's another story entirely. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS REAL - SLATED FOR COMPLETION IN FALL 2010

Nobody's saying that it's a hoax... maybe it will be notable three years from now Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

 It will be the tallest building in Seattle to be constructed since 1990, and the first ever to be designed to LEED Gold Standards.

^^It is already notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pwnage8 Ihaveacomputer (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. My searches for sources were as fruitful as the ones discussed below, unfortunately. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafa Hussein Mustafa

Academic that doesn't quite meet WP:PROF. [2] I see no coverage of the professor in multiple independent reliable sources. Article is completely unreferenced. Need the community to take a gander at this. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the article can be sourced. Dreamspy (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hard to google, in that full name pulls up only three references. Removing middle name produces hits for multiple people. Evidence suggest, however, that he's just another professor. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, an accomplished academic but I just can't find corroborating sources for any significance. The neat story about helping a student escape the Iron Curtain is just that. Perhaps there are sources in Arabic, but there don't seem to be many online sources in German, where he was active. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no interest either way, but isn't it Wiki policy that Professors are notable by the fact they are Professors? Dreamspy (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. See WP:PROF for notability criteria for professors. Some more junior academics qualify despite not being professors, and some full professors have failed to make an adequate impact to qualify. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Well for you it is a neat story, for Harald Funk, Editor of Langenscheidt's Arabic Book, it isn't, it was essential to become what he is today - Germanies leading Arabiic and Middle Eastern Scholars ---- and because he was the guy who escaped! Thanks god, on th ephilological field paper and manuscript machines are really rare. That is why there is not that much rubbish published like on the health/ medical sector. On the other hand to be quite honest, there is also a difference between teaching and research when it comes to papers. If you teach at a Uni, you wont have much time to publish, if you do research you do not like to waste time with teaching. Well I suggest to keep him on Wiki. Further more his work on epic texts of Ugarit is leading. yours David Klappstock and Richard Mühlengold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahnreisser (talk • contribs) 20:05, March 3, 2008
Weak keep' Considering that the East German Secret Police kept tabs on half the population of East German--and certainly every intellectual or foreigner--being under their surveillance is hardly notable. It is difficult to tell the significance of the works, as they appear to be in relatively few libraries. Being a full professor in an East German university did, unfortunately, not quite have the significance usually attach to such positions in the west, or before WW II, or currently. I'd like the view of a specialist. hDGG (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear that passes the prof test + V and RS issues to boot. I am skeptical of the claim about a leading voice in Ugaritic/Akamite studies, per the current literature, but am willing to be shown wrong as that might suggest WP:Prof level notability. Eusebeus (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Zerida ☥ 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted at 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC) by Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per CSD G3 (vandalism). cab (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Journeys

Another Sonic game with no reference, not even believed to be real! Doktor Wilhelm 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Seems to be a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious; I stopped reading at the "Sonic enters the real world" part. JuJube (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Footie

Although Life on Mars is definately notable, individual episodes should show notability on their own. WP:NOTABILITY says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I can't see this episode as getting that. I suppose this is a test case for Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes episodes. JASpencer (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EPISODE. Article links to coverage by BBC and TV.com. faithless (^speak) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite unquestioned good faith and sincerity of nomination, anyone deliberately nominating in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie jawdroppingly bad judgement, sufficient to question the value of any nomination from said nominator - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, episode of a notable TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenshred

Fails WP:MUSIC. No tours or notable label. No third party sources. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC -- I see no coverage in reliable sources anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, definitely fails WP:MUSIC - only references I can find are either blogs, myspace, youtube, or non-notable personal/fan websites. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable label. The band isn't even listed on that label's website. The band doesn't even have its own website. -Freekee (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - good stage names, and article seems to have been started by a real Wikipedia contributor and not a SPA; but it still fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Danny Sullivan (technologist)

The result was Keep Notability is asserted. Non-admin close. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this person is notable enough for inclusion. Many references are given but most are not reliable and some do not mention the subject. MSGJ (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the USA Today article about Sullivan - in which Google's Matt Cutts describes Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website as "must reading." and Yahoo's Tim Mayer says it the "most authoritative source on search." - alone shows notability. In addition he founded the two major Search Conferences (SMX and SES) and is widely quoted as the major independent commentator on search engines. I'd say he qualifies. Gwernol 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the extensive list of sources provided at Talk:Danny Sullivan (technologist) which include The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the BBC, the San Francisco Chronicle etc. The article should definitely be improved, but I don't see much doubt that there should be an article on Sullivan. Gwernol 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per USA Today reference, etc. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest we close this per WP:SNOW. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had closed the AfD per SNOW, but have no re-opened it, since it was disputed whether I should close it after participating. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article could be better written, this story from the New York Times in 2000 demonstrates notability. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the current version of the article doesn't clearly specify his notability in the lead, but he had been profiled by USA Today and had been extensively quoted by the press on all matters relating to search engines. See the article's talk page for a list of links. DHN (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is currently a bit spammy/POV, but that can be fixed. Most of the redlinks should point back to this article if they're needed at all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is totally legit and known throughout his industry. He is a pioneer in his field. He belongs in Wikipedia. --[[User:i-boy|i-boy] | Talk 21:35, 5 March 2008 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Speedy close Article has an A7 tag on it; and given that the content is "scott cameron gives out free tickets to children hu can not afford them.", I doubt the A7 will be declined. Speedy delete A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cameron

CSD A7. Non-notable spam. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to tag it for A7, you didn't need to go to AfD; you could have just placed a speedy tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like there are multiple sources to be cited out there, which gets rid of the WP:N concern. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging STOP awacs

Point of view in article (could not find CSD template to fit) George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to something such as Noise pollution in the Netherlands and cite. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The whole thing's written like an argument against those planes, it's against NPOV. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NPOV and WP:N, as this seems like a "local" issue, and appears to be a "cry for help" to try and get others sympathy on the issue. ArcAngel (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NPOV isn't really a reason to delete, it would just need to be rewritten/revised to meet the policy. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: What if we consider it under WP:N then? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, of course - I was merely pointing out a possible argument focusing solely on WP:NPOV. Non-notable = delete. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete evidence suggests that this is a local protest group. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there does appear to be sufficient coverage. Unfortunately almost no information in English so I don't know how significant, but it is mentioned in several articles in different sources over a few years. Article does provide some information - it would need to be rewritten for NPOV but that is not a reason to delete. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, can be sourced and made neutral. - cohesion 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I think making it neutral would essentially make this a stub. But if there is coverage of the group in local language news, then it should be kept to allow Dutch readers to improve the article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G12 (copyvio) by Seresin. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interact club

Contested speedy deletion under CSD G11 - insufficiently noted by reliable sources — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essay/copyvio/OR/non-notable. One of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Research of Anatolian Folk Beliefs

Fails to establish notability through use of reliable sources. Wizardman 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and rather obscure organization. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It appears to be a small, but serious, academic association, and so it may be worthy of inclusion, hence keep. But there are no sources that say that it actually is serious and academic, hence weak keep. (Google finds sources in Turkish, which i, unfortunately, cannot read.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their journal is held only in one US library (Harvard) . Even given that it is published in Turkish, there are more American libraries collecting Turkish systematically than that. Not even the Library of Congress has it. Not even the British Library. DGG (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The journal (Kırkbudak: Anadolu Halk İnançları Araştırmaları) is only informally linked to AHAD, which, although composed mainly of academics, may be primarily an advocacy group. The article creator, Aykan Erdemir, is one of the board members of AHAD, making this a case of conflict of interest; he is also Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology and Deputy Dean of the Graduate School of Social Sciences, Middle East Technical University. The coverage on Turkish web pages is not overwhelming; all I can find is a few statements that Aykan Erdemir is a board member. --Lambiam 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of importance as indicated by the findings of DGG and Lambiam. Jfire (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I was able to find, this is an obscure and non notable subject. --Stormbay (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non admin close) Undeath (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Saeed

~~Fails WP:PROF and WP:N, with notability not beign addressed since tag put up in April. Wizardman 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Notability has certainly been satisfied. Note that it had been tagged with problems for nearly a year, I figured someone would've at least looked in that timespan. I withdraw my nom. Thanks to Jfire, who went and improved the article in rather short order. Wizardman 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - While it fails WP:PROF, WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, it also does not assert the importance of the subject. Meets A7. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- in one minute of searching I found not one but two features in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and a prominent mention in The New York Times. Jfire (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As well as the sources found by Jfire how about these 343 news articles and these 21 books which write about him? Did the nominator and the other deleters above not even think of doing a couple of basic searches before commenting? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether he passes WP:PROF, he seems a clear pass of WP:BIO due to the multiple independent published profiles of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Venice

A mere grouping of three places in northern Venice? Which it.... isn't... I confess I don't understand the idea of this page. No response as of yet from the creator, and he or she was messaged only 1 minute after the article was created. SGGH ^speak! 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess it means that these three cities all claim to be "The Venice of the North", because they all have canals, or at least water... Birmingham, England should join the list (more miles of canals than Venice), and probably other places. There could be an article based on this, I suppose, but it would need to add some meat and not just look like a DAB page; and "Venice of the North" would be a much less confusing title. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research that forgets Brugge! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as a pis aller, redirect. A dab page Venice of the North already exists, of which this is an incomplete duplicate. Deor (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded User:Deor per above SGGH ^speak! 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a second-rate substitute for the existing Venice of the North, and an improbable version of the title, not worth making into a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like WP:OR to me, as well as not being encyclopaedic. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomplete duplicate of the "Venice of the North" page, with possibly misleading title. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just by the title, I thought it meant Mestre and was going to suggest a merge. But simply a list of other European cities with absolutely no context? --Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanda Teuta Vucicevic

Could be notable, but article as it stands fails to establish notability. Wizardman 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only asserts notability in the most general terms. Where, specifically, has her work been recognized?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability for what seems a young photographer. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has exhibited at the Riverside Studios, which is a TV studio and cinema, and not a major exhibition centre for contemporary art, and Seimans_artLab, which looks a bit more significant, but not enough to justify WP:BIO. I've added the links to the article in any case, though should add that the Riverside Studios one is from the Bosnia Institute, where the artist works as an editorial assistant [3].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was close to no consensus, but the arguments for keeping were, on the whole, more compelling, and many of the delete arguments were effectively rebutted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Roden

No establishment of referenced notability, appears to fail WP:N at this time. Wizardman 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:N. Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, honored for 30 years of service to Rutgers, wrote an influential book on education in Imperial Japan, which was reviewed in numerous journals, cited or quoted in many books -- clearly passes WP:PROF. Come on people, do a basic Google book or journal search before !voting. Jfire (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think the 30 years service is anything that can be used to pass notability. On the contrary, being there that long and yet not being promoted to full professor seems a bad sign for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that he has received an award for 30 years of service is an indication that he has most likely had an influence in the areas he studies. And in fact, searches of books and journals indicate that he has. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Jfire's links show fairly typical academic impact. I havn't seen anything to suggest he passes WP:PROF, or evidence of significant coverage of Roden as a topic by reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links show him passing at least WP:PROF #1 and #2 (as evidenced by the above search links) and #3 (his book was reviewed by at least three journals); it's likely that he passes #4 and #5 as well, and arguably #6 via the service award. Can you state more specifically why you don't see this as evidence of passing WP:PROF? Jfire (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also cited as a reference in Professional baseball in Japan and Yokohama Athletic Club. The same paper is cited in numerous books and articles. Jfire (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you state more specifically why you don't see this as evidence of passing" Yes, I suppose I can. The evidence you provide demonstrates that he's an academic, but it does not demonstrate that he's had a notable impact as an academic. None of the bolded parts of the six criteria in WP:PROF is demonstrably true in this case. Being cited as a reference in Wikipedia doesn't make one notable, nor does having one's PhD thesis published and reviewed. That's what professors are expected to do. This Prof does not stand out from the crowd of other Profs in the sense required by WP:PROF #1 or #2. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If this were a starting faculty member with a record like this I'd be more impressed, but if the best we can dig up after 30 years is a single book with three reviews and 21 cites in Google scholar, an associate professorship, and mention in a list of a couple dozen faculty who've been at Rutgers for 30 years, it doesn't seem like a pass of WP:PROF to me. #1, #2, #4: where are the citation numbers or other evidence that he is regarded as a significant expert or an important figure, or that his collected body of work is regarded as significant? #3: three reviews (actually at least four: [4]) does not qualify a humanities book as a significant work, it is rather the minimum that one would hope for. And it's his Ph.D. thesis; what has he done since? #5: what distinguishes his work from that of other East Asian historians? #6: time-at-service is simply not a notable award. I'm aware that Google scholar may not be the best source for citations to this kind of work, but the other database I tried, ISI, gave even fewer results: searching for Roden, DT, only three papers came up, two completely uncited and one with only two citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pete above. Eusebeus (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful, sourced, neutral article. - cohesion 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 30 years is a long time to work for the university, and congratulations to him for it. But he doesn't seem to have done a lot of notable work, so he doesn't really need a Wikipedia article to commemorate his service. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on google books there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - I see 110 cites in Google Scholar, and since they all seem to be Japanese-based items I don't fancy there's more than one Donald Roden in academia. [5]. Interestingly enough, he also seems to have penned a few Monarch Notes. Ravenswing 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Nandesuka (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy Media Inc

No improvement to the article since questionable notability tag put up back in April. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the matter. Wizardman 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Call this the nom.: sources are co. press releases and similar that are not establish the company's notability per WP:CORP; previous PROD was removed by single-purpose-account. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. I added their non-notable product to the nomination. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, as owners of major league sports teams are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway Sports Group

The article does not assert the company's notability WP:ORG ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references seem to be sound. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 100% ownership in the Boston Red Sox and 50% ownership in a NASCAR team is notable enough for me. ArcAngel (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a pretty good sports group that features world-caliber sports - from the famous Red Sox to the popular Matt Kenseth. Big top 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Establishes notability - group is mentioned in reliable sources such as the Boston Globe and USA today. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all three. Fram (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Concert (Trace Adkins album)

Okay, I admit, I probably shouldn't have made this page. This is just a live album that Trace Adkins cut at some point; although Trace is very notable, this album doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources at all. Yes, I realize that 99% of albums released by notable artists are notable as well; however, the lack of coverage here has me believing that this album falls into that other 1%. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing another live album page I made, for the same reason as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, while I commend your superb taste in music, the only RS coverage (Trace and Joe) I find is announcements of the albums. No reviews, no critiques. Don't appear notable, although they were great song collections, from my perspective :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If these albums should be deleted, so too should Live in Concert (Mark Chesnutt album). Eric444 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment Don't seem notable, per Eric444's comment above I've also listed the Mark Chesnutt CD, which is the same album. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Eric444 and Caldorwards4. By the way, I suppose I could have {{db-author}}ed these; however, I thought a discussion was in order first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, nobody cares including the creator of one of the articles. Paddy Simcox (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

The subject "fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as the article shows no evidence that the topic is notable per WP:MUSIC which states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.", WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no evidence of such coverage within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Support if.. Hello. I have submitted this article for a peer review and a second is in the process, I am however considering "merging" the articles into one article, as suggested by User:Ruhrfisch at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis/archive2 but I am waiting for an example of such an article, if you could provide me with one I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article shows no evidence of its notability in line with WP:MUSIC. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Cloudz679, can you please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is sufficently covered in one sentence, which already exists in the band's article. Dgf32 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can someone please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. I would really appreciate if someone could help this time, so the deletion process can be closed. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help me with my question. I have also asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and am waiting for a reply. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Harry and the Potters discography. As per the music notability guideline which states that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. It's technically not an album per se and there hasn't been a lot of media coverage, so it might not have enough notability to merit an actual article. If so, then a redirect should be sufficient enough.--TBC !?! 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word there is "may", there is no evidence of notability through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources in the article and none has been presented during the course of this discussion. WP:MUSIC clearly states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines", this requires objective evidence. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my recommendation of a redirect.--TBC !?! 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TBC. y'am'can (wtf?) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: utterly non-notable fan-drivelly-thing :-) —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. No longer in print (according to lead) and not a notable subject in the first place. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Streep, Jr.

Brother of famous people does not make him famous. Only has a couple of walk on parts in his IMDB entry. JASpencer (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if this guy did something worth making an article about...-- Carerra^"Chatter" 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Gwandoya (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He's more notable than your usual John Doe, but agreed with above. Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new communication technology in indonesia

Either original research or copy/pasted from somewhere. No references, and not in an encyclopedic format. Alvestrand (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest, this sounds like a case study someone wanted to put on Wikipedia, rather than distribute it via other methods. It's non-encyclopedic and essay-like. No sources, no verification. Yngvarr (c) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio, OR, whatever. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, text is unclear, article is written like an essay, it needs citation, wikification etc. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not a copyvio, its an OR essay which have no place on Wikipedia. It reads like a high school/college assignment paper or someone's case study. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether or not to move the individual names to a separate List of archetypal names can be decided elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypal name

We have a page that as of yet cannot even provide a source for the title of the page! A long list without a few sources. Some of this list pertaining to supposed ethnic slurs. The page looks to me like a list of slurs, stereotypes, and names of famous people that someone decided are "archetypal names," and listed them together. OR to the max. Sethie (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the term exists. The list is mostly verifiable. The proper solution is to source the information. `'Míkka >t 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source away.... and I'll change my vote. Because I filed it wrong, you've already had almost 36 hours... and no solid sources have appeared. Sethie (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's always going to be chock-full of OR; articles on metasyntactic variable and placeholder name would seem to be ample. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the proper solution to keep OR out is to source infomation, not to delete valid topic. "Placeholder name" is not the same as "archetypal name". the very fact that you don't know this makes the article necessary. `'Míkka >t 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikkalai. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep article is in poor condition (I especially don't understand a word of the section about Abraham, which doesn't seem to be about archetypal names at all) but that's a reason to improve, not delete. NB We have many pages which have no sources at all - we delete those for which a source cannot be found, not those for which one has not yet been provided. --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source for the concept around which this page has been created. Sethie (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*:You've already nominated the article for deletion. I think the closing admin will know you think it should be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. What is your experience- do the people who nominate tend to vote, or not? Sethie (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fortunately, it does not matter, for administrators generally do know to count, and also know to consider only arguments based on policy. DGG (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*:::...and, importantly, it's not a vote. You can find out more about how the process works at WP:AFD and links from there. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very knowledgage about the whole process Dweller and very eager to help. In your experience do people who nominate tend to ughhhhh weigh in? Mine is they do- but only about 99% of the time. What is yours? Sethie (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think I've gone over the edge from helpful to patronising and I apologise to Sethie, because I think my tone was inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your appology is welcome and not neccesary- and a great reminder to me to take things easy and say "sorry" when I am not satisfied with how I interacted with people. :) Sethie (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to antonomasia and improve that article to better reflect this aspect of the word. Per ([6]). With thanks to User:SaundersW. --Dweller (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose to "redirect". Wikipedia is not paper. The concepts are not the same and antonomasia is in no way "better" here. (The word "sometimes" in "antonomasia" article easily escapes attention of occasional lookers-peepers.) By your logic everything remotely similar (archetype, kenning, antonomasia, synecdoche) is to be merged into metonymy. Different words are used in different situations for a reason. An encyclopedia in to clarify this reason, not to lump everything together and blur it into a mess. `'Míkka >t 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added to the talk page four sources which use this phrase. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw most of those when I was searching for sources. However, I don't think any of them mean what the article is saying, they're just applying the common adjective "archetypal" to the noun "name", rather than using the phrase to mean something specific. So, to make up two sentences:

"Paddy" is an archetypal name for an Irishman - the less specific meaning, where it's an adj+noun

"Lolita" is an archetypal name for a provocative young girl - the specific type of usage we're after. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 66 hits on Google Print; term exists, case closed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller is right on the money. Because the phrase "archetypal name" shows up on hits doesn't mean it is a term! Do a search on "boring name" and you'll get 39,000+ hits, should we write an article on that? :) The fact remains that no one has yet to produce a source that discusses this term, nor gives a formal definition of this alleged term. Sethie (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename as List of archetypal names. A good dictionary should suffice as a source of accepted usage for each item. I'll go and add some dictionary.com sources right now. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I spent quite some time carefully doing exactly that, but Sethie reverted the edits stating that it was OR because the dictionaries only used the name in the way defined in the article without actually using the term "archetypal name". I don't accept that.

For a list, it is sufficient that the concept is notable. I believe the Ghits mentioned above for "archetypal name" demonstrate this. Now all that is needed are sources for the instances on the list.

Where a personal name has become a word and entered dictionaries as such, e.g. Casanova, that is a sufficient and reliable source. Some other cases are not in the main dictionaries; even if the usage sounds familiar, it would clearly be WP:OR to provide examples from literature or TV, so perhaps those should be removed from the list - arguably they are references to the character rather than archetypal names. Then again, WP:NOTABILITY does not require sources for each item in a list, since the list provides context: If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, WP:NOR does for each name. Sethie (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Scott (footballer)

Fails to meet notability guidelines for football (soccer) players. Franky843 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not yet notable.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTY/Notability English peasant 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per пﮟოьεԻ 57. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous!

Appears non-notable and failing WP:MUSIC. Only myspace and one mp3 website cited is a big give away. Supporting LA Guns I don't think makes them particularly notable, zero ghits, no albums or songs listed. "Downloads in the thousands" is uncited. SGGH ^speak! 16:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simple. No sources. -- Carerra^"Chatter" 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet requirements for WP:BAND. The sources are self-referential and fail WP:RS. Downloads in the thousands, with no statistics (which, can be challenged anyways). Yngvarr (c) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, simple. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy no sources, no article Sethie (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources given for claims. All I get for "thousands of downloads" is last.fm, which simply claims 16,375 people have listened to them, hardly enough to base a claim on (no downloads on last.fm either). No news coverage, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Nathan Cotteral

Delete this league hasn't even begun play, so are its players notable (yet)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Players in a fully professional league are notable ... even if they're in a low-level professional league. Blueboy 96 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum It would seem to me that this would apply even if the league hasn't played a down yet. Blueboy 96 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of content, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least until the league has played. :) - cohesion 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (footballer)

Fails to meet notability guidelines for football (soccer) players. Article was previously deleted for this reason.

Delete Professor marginalia (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. WP:CSD should apply since this is the second Afd for this article. ArcAngel (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTY/Notability English peasant 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) - article does not satisfy the notability criteria at WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE any more than it did when it was last deleted. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, this is not a valid speedy deletion G4 case, since the player's history somewhat evolved after the last AfD, even if not enough to award him a place in this encyclopedia. --Angelo (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gav Richards

Vanity page for non-notable radio presenter/DJ. All references are affiliated with the subject. Jfire (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely COI by article's creator. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extreme vanity, indeed! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of 3rd party reliable sources. Perhaps the nominator also might like to consider an AFD on Wayne Tunncliffe (Wayne or Wayne Allen). The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:COI. ArcAngel (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. Thanks for keeping it up for as long as it has been! Grjock (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an incomprehensible mess. Evaluating this discussion was extremely difficult due to the large number of IPs and new accounts contributing to this. As such, I'm closing this discussion and relisting it so we can hash this out. Blueboy 96 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkyOS

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Advertisement, not-notable Imacreditcard (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the only valid reason for proposing this article for deletion, I have taken it upon myself to completely rewrite the current SkyOS Wikipedia article. Please see the article's discussion page for more information (under the heading "March 4th Rewrite").

Alex Forster (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to administrators: If you look at the people who are voting to keep this article, you'll notice that the majority of them are IPs, people who recently registered, and even people who signed their name twice. Masterhomer 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSkyOS is a popular hobbyist operating system, and is notable and identifiable enough for a Wikipedia entry. The article should be tagged as reading like an advertisement and corrected, and deletion is totally unnecessary. tapo (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should not be deleted, information about this Operating System should be available for anyone. The atricle about SkyOS needt to be updated, It needs to be extended. This is not an advertention, it's information. And it should be able to be on wikipedia, like there is information about a lot of other operating systems. --A-v-S (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — A-v-S (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete Advertisements don't belong on Wikipedia -- Carerra^"Chatter" 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the sections that were tagged as being ad-like. Blueboy 96 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a vast rewrite. Wikipedia has entries for Syllable, Atheos and ReactOS, surely there is room for SkyOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.61.99 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep looks great, now, well done! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Removed the critism section because of complete wrong and therefore irrelevant information. (see articles dicussion page for more details) Robert Szeleney, 90.146.34.54 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — 90.146.34.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It seems that this argument is raised more against the philosophy behind SkyOS, rather than the SkyOS article itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.43.167 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long-standing article (active since at least 2004) about a popular, actively-developed piece of software, and it gives relevant and non-biased information. It is by no means an advertisement. Take a look at the content, and even the page history: nothing here is an advertisement any more than the OS X page is an advertisement. And as to irrelevancy, try searching for articles containing "skyos". At least fifteen computer-related articles mention it ON WIKIPEDIA. I think a user with otherwise no history on Wikipedia has learned the procedures for deletion and is now wasting our time. Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — 68.32.200.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per above reasons. ArcAngel (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shall we mark the Windows and Osx pages for deletion as well? It is not because a product is a commercial product that it cannot have a wikipedia page. If people are not happy with the (contents of the) article they should discuss this first. The page is not intended as advertising but to provide information to people that want to know more. The comments above already indicate well enough the weak reasons for deletion... Peter Speybrouck — 157.193.5.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I agree with Peter above me, this is not a form of advertising, if you think so then you need to deleted half the articles on wikipedia.... Liam Dawe — 82.46.55.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete based on a lack of third-party references and nothing to show that this is actually in use in any significant degree, or even being talked about to any significant degree. For an OS to be worth having a Wikipedia article on, there has to be some solid independent third-party mentions out there, and none are listed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mentions-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=skyos&fulltext=Search - list of pages on Wikipedia that reference SkyOS (there are 22 at time of post)
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/0317211&tid=154 - Slashdot story on SkyOS
http://www.techimo.com/articles/i154.html - TechIMO interview about SkyOS (there have been two)
http://www.osnews.com/topics/21 - OSNews category completely devoted to SkyOS news
http://www.google.com/search?q=skyos - etc etc, there are thousands of paying beta testers who would say differently - I don't think irrelevancy is even a question

Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SkyOS deserves an entry. The article does need a rewrite and proper formatting but I think it's improving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A305w (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 March 2008

Keep Keep per aforementioned reasons. -- Stormwatch (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I agree the article is not as it should be, but why waste time discussing its deletion when it can be used to correct it?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rawlings

Non-notable author. My research indicates that his book received only blurb reviews of the type found in Library Journal. Web searches reveal that he may be the husband of Bobbie Ann Mason and may have worked as an editor at Rodale Press, but I cannot locate any significant coverage of him (or his book). Jfire (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article was self-created created article signed talk Professor marginalia (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relist in four weeks if reliable sources haven't been added. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been tagged for notability since April 2007. I agree that giving time for articles to blossom is a good strategy, but eleven months is plenty of time. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article does not establish notability per notability guidelines, namely "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability other than as Mason's husband. All GNews Archive results refer primarily to her. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons described above. Thebee (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is claim and counter-claim here, with people trying to be too pithy-one-sentence-clever and this reduces the signal information available to the closing admin. It strikes me clearly from reading the debate that this is viewed as original synthesis , and I do think that claim is largely justified, as there are various editorial excitements included in the text, such as "The town of Smallville survives its share of living hell as the U.S. Civil War erupts", as an arbitrary example. There is also a general view that this is excessively detailed for its subject material, is almost entirely in-universe and that it (demonstrably) is almost totally lacking in sources — effectively the three death-knells sounding from the complaints re WP:PLOT. Also, I observe that, whilst we are not bound by 'precedent', an example is given of a topically similar article that was deleted last year on similar grounds. The clear-cut sway of the debate here is to delete and the challenges to the policy-based complaints are insufficient to persuade the deleters to change. Two side notes: (i) the injunction is now lifted and (ii) the relisting was an unnecessary burden to AfD when there was plenty of debate included prior to the relisting. Relisting is not the pursuit of a trivial decision for the closing admin, it is for the extension of a debate so thin that not even a 'no consensus' can be meaningfully determined. Splash - tk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville timeline

There isn't a single source on the page, which also means there isn't one asserting why this topic needs its own article. Not to mention that it's nothing more than plot information. A lot, if not most, of the information in this article is basic episode information covered on the season pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe anybody actually spends timed writing (or reading) this, but it's no less strange or obsessive than many of the things on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead already says it is based in original research, and the rest seems like a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, just plot and original synthesis based on the plot. Jay32183 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT, and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article). TJ Spyke 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Probably better suited to a Smallville fansite, but at least it's somewhat useful to anyone new to the series who may look it up on Wikipedia to learn more about the show. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional articles must be based on the real world. Fictional timelines rarely, if ever, are written from a real world perspective. They are typically written from an in-universe perspective, which is not allowed for fictional topic articles. Regardless, if someone wants to know about Smallville, why aren't they looking at Smallville (TV series)#Season overview, or Smallville (season 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Smallville timeline is linked in one high traffic area, that's in the "Season overview" section of the main page. The only place that I can think of that it is linked in is the Smallville template at the bottom of every page. Without the knowledge that you'd gain by reading the season articles, this page doesn't make much sense, because it loosely ties particular episode elements together. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this barred by the Arb Com injunction,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's right. There isn't one, and I'm basically the most active editor for these pages. This page right here is run by anons. Regardless, still blatantly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no reason to split this stuff off originally, and I've already explained how most of the stuff on the page is hardly even notable in the series itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment If one person is the only major editor for the related articles, then perhaps it shows that others need to edit also. It's OWNership to decide by oneself on how to organise things, and try to delete the pages that do it differently. One person may not feel a particular arrangement useful. I find it helps the understanding of the material, though those more familiar find the more detailed accounts sufficient. Another example of how parts of the encyclopedia without sufficient general attention can be unrepresentative of encyclopedic needs. DGG (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page statistics. There isn't really anyone that stands out. One editor with 18 edits, and another with 6, then it starts trickly down to just single edits. The editor with 18 edits hasn't visited the page since March 2007. If you took out all the OR, there isn't much left that isn't already stated elsewhere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, non-notable, useless, fancrufty - one of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot. That said, these sort of "timelines", like theBuffyverse chronology that was deleted last year, are original research, trying to tie together primary sources in a novel way, creating a new synthesis of primary source materials. --Phirazo 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% per reasoning of the nominator. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smallville on Wikipedia's most active contributor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coherent, well-organized, discriminate, verifiable sub-article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what this AfD will do. Regardless, I've already explained how this "timeline" loosely ties events that barely had anything to do with one another on the show itself. Just because it happens in the show doesn't make it relevant to the show's fictional timeline. If John Doe appears on the show, then John Doe's personal history is not relevant to this timeline. Heck, the first section ties the person that left the information in the caves, with the person that left the crystals, when at no point in the show did they ever say they were one in the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite undoubted sincerity and good faith of nomination, anyone who nominates something knowingly in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie evidence of judgement so awful as to suggest deleting all nominations from this nominator, to avoid wasting precious AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I nominated it before I knew what the injunction was, and how "strict" it was regarding merging, deleting or anything to do with fiction related articles. So, "keeping" an article just because you disagree with my AfD'ing something fiction when there was an injunction in place (one, again I add, that I wasn't aware of in its entirety, having not read the ArbCom till after I AfD'd this article) is rather immature. You're basically making you opinion to keep the article, not on the article's merit of deletion, but rather on your opinion that I should not AfD any fiction related article to begin with. Just to point out, DGG did ask if this timeline was covered by the injunction, and the only two people to respond to him agreed that it was not covered by the injunction. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, there is no such thing as "wasting AfD time". If something doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of being deleted (i.e. the AfD was made in extreme bad faith) then that is evident from the start and the AfD can be quickly closed. If the AfD has merit (and the numerous deletion votes suggests that this does, regardless of the fact that any outcome won't be put into action until the injunction is removed), then you cannot "waste time" reviewing the article. It is YOUR decision to review an article based on the concerns of the nominating editor. If you feel your time was "wasted" reading it, that's an opinion and probably would weigh on your decision to support a deletion of the article. Given that AfD is a community based decision process, and not part of some systematic program that would require "time well spent", there is nothing to waste. You cannot even claim that it is a waste of time for the Admin closing the AfD to read all that is being discussed, because there is a big banner at the top of this page that says whatever the outcome, the page cannot be deleted/merged/etc etc until the injunction is over. So, the "closing" Admin can simply walk away from the article, or come give their own opinion. The only positive thing about this AfD existing in the face of the injunction is the extended time it gets to find more neutral opinions about the article's existence, and thus achieving a more clear consensus about the outcome. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually a lot of time is needlessly lost on AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you think that I sit here all day trying to delete articles? I've turn 3 television articles into Featured Articles. I've turned a fictional character into a featured article. I've been working my Wiki butt off to develop several other articles, so please don't flash that sanctimonious attitude at me. I put in my time in developing articles, and when I find articles that I truly believe do not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, then I do what I must to see that it is rectified, in some way shape for form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Then I encourage you to focus more on helping to improve and expand other articles rather than attempting to diminish other editors' contributions and efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I improve and expand more articles than you could possibly imagine. I do my part, trust me. How about you realize that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan house where we should have an article on every single minute piece of information in the world (regardless of how notable or important it is anywhere). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Five pillars, we are an encyclopeia AND a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. We are NOT paper. Our founder said we are trying to provide the sum total of human knowledge. If it is important or notable anywhere and is factually accurate there is no reasonable or non-elitist rationale not to have an article on it. We should not discriminate against our contirbutors and readers. Especially because people donate money to Wikipedia. Thus, we should tolerant with articles we don't particularly personally care for. Time is much better spent improving and building articles we do care about than attempting to diminish other editors and readers' experiences on our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment Let's wait until this Thursday's episode when (I'm NOT making this up, check the TV listings) Pete Ross (Sam Jones III) returns to the show and gets superpowers after using kryptonite chewing gum.... history in the making? Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being serious, or just trying to lighten the mood? That episode will have nothing to do with this timeline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to lighten the mood. I'm gathering that I'm mistaken about this being a new episode, so people have already seen it and factored it in. Once the new, post-strike episodes begin, then of course every new chapter adds to the continuity that the viewers have been following since 2001. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the information is handled in the Smallville episode by seasons articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tommorrow per nom. The injunction will be vacated by then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - First off, it's probably better to assume good faith with Jack's intentions, then to insinuate that he doesn't already know that Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have seen statements outright made in the ArbCom to the effect of not liking or knowing about these sorts of articles and that alone being the rationale for wanting them deleted, i.e. regardless of the article's merits. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but in order to have consensus we cannot exclude editors willing to write or interested in reading articles they deem encyclopedic just because any of disagree. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, it is more likely than not consistent with either a general or specialized encyclopedia and the problems identified usually fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright removal. Even in a worse case scenario, because editors obviously believed the topic worthwhile we would then at least redirect the article, since editors have and do use Smallville timeline as a search phrase, but again that would NOT mean deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has almost no traffic as far as editing is concerned, there has been approximately 100 edits to the page since its inception (with the leading editor at 18 edits not having edited the article for over a year). Ignoring how many people have edited the page, lets do a simple traffic test. The timeline has had about 5000 hits. By comparison, Smallville (TV series) has about 264,000 hits. Regardless of traffic, there isn't a policy that says "if people creat an article for it, and it isn't copyvio then it should stay". This page is a clear violation of WP:PLOT (which is a policy). Not to mention the violations of WP:NOR. Now, can you cite a policy that says this page should stay? I've not come across any real world information regarding the "timeline" itself, but, if you can find it before this AfD closes then I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That is, real world information that has context for the timeline. Putting something from one of the season pages there that has nothing to do with the timeline won't cut it. This is why timelines are generally deleted (see the above link for all the timeline AfDs), because it is next to impossible to provide any real world coverage, context, information, what have you in order to satisfy WP:PLOT. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even WP:FICT only talks about splittin off articles when there is a size issue, which...since I'm not sure what article this ever split from to begin with, there isn't a size issue anywhere. To summarize FICT for you, "Like all Wikipedia articles, spinout articles are edited in accordance with our policies and guidelines; specifically, content in spinout articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Such sources can include primary sources - such as the work of fiction itself or commentary from the author or other involved parties - in addition to real-world content from secondary sources." -- "In addition" is the key word that should be looked at. That means that you cannot spin-out pure plot information for size reasons for 2 reasons: (a) You must follow the policies and guidelines we already have (see WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While I am still far from persuaded that the article should not be kept, I agree that we are indeed using time up that could be better spent improving articles. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. – Steel 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Shannon Matthews

Reporting of missing girl assumes future notability (fails WP:N#TEMP). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Still to early to say in which case its still an ok Stub. If this get deleted we have to delete sutch pages as Meredith Kercher and Lindsay Hawker to. And of course Murder of Rhys Jones and Shanda Sharer and Natalee Holloway.. etc etc etc--Markoolio86 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking personally, and intending no disrespect to the editors of these articles or the families involved, I think I would delete most of those articles based on WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTABILITY and other concerns. I'm not suggesting this, just letting you know that your opinion is universal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Deor (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's no longer on the front of the local papers. WP:NOT#NEWS at its finest. Will ^(talk) 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,How can you insure that Will? This case could become headline news tomorrow or tonight for that matter in case of developments, this case gets covering on Sky News and many other medias. And then if it gets deleted it will be the same mess as it was with the article Murder of Maria Lauterbach.--Markoolio86 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I live no more than ten miles from where she went missing. The Courier ran a story about her gran (who lives in the same town I do on Friday, but IIRC wasn't the headlining one. Will ^(talk) 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The materials linked by the Pumpkin King are very much on point. Redirecting Otenba to Tomboy would be an editorial matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tomboys in fiction

While I wouldn't be opposed to a well-written, well-sourced article called Tomboys in fiction or Tomboys in popular culture, this sprawling list consists entirely of original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

I am bundling the article Otenba into this deletion discussion because it consists of nothing more than a short dictionary definition and a sprawling, unsourced list of fictional tomboys similar to the List of tomboys in fiction.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article dose NOT deserve to be deleted, nothing here has to be from an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although "Otenba" probably should be an article, since it's described as the "Japanese equivalent of a tomboy", I agree with the nominator that this is mostly an excuse to use that definition, and then to make a list. Like most equivalents, I imagine that there are some differences between "tomboy" and "otenba", although they are similar. As for "List of tomboys in fiction", most of the persons on the list are based on a person's idea and it's probably better to delete. "Tomboy" is kind of an archaic label, isn't it? Kind of like "uppity" to describe a person of another race who didn't know their "place" in society? Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic? Here's an article from just 6 hours ago which makes it very topical. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the writer of the article says that the word "tomboy" is "so anachronistic as to be practically meaningless". The word is still in some use but the article indicates that there is some dispute as to whether it is still appropriate or overly stereotypical. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of tomboys in fiction I checked the well-known-to-me case of George in the Famous Five which is there and seems fine. The nomination of unencyclopedic and OR is weak with no example of contentious cases. The article just needs work to improve the sourcing and prune any dubious entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Delete Otenba as English Wikipedia is not a Japanese dictionary Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first. A fair portion of the first list can probably be sourced -- I don't know how many times I've seen Jo March and Nan from Little Men, to take the first two, referred to as tomboys. If the problem is OR, then the fix is to insist on sourcing -- and if that means adding {{Fact}} to each and every item on the list until either someone provides one or a reasonable deadline has passed, so be it. I note that for many of the list items with articles of their own, if being a tomboy is a significant aspect of their character, there's a good chance a source in the article can be copied. (No opinion yet on the second.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Famous Five from childhood (it was a series of British mysteries for kids) and that was a long time ago, from an era when it was considered unusual for a girl to wear "boy clothes" instead of dresses and skirts. While Warden, like I, can distinguish between a girl who defied the limitations of the time that she lived in, versus a modern-day girl that someone puts a tomboy label upon, I don't think that most contributions to the list show that type of consideration. Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs some work done. Having this information assembled is a useful list, and serves to organise things from the aspect of character. They're equally useful--the Japanese one appears so because the contents is generally less familiar, so we see the need of it more. The material is sourced from the descriptions of the fictions; there should be no problem finding a source for each which refers to each character asa tomboy if it is challenged--another case for discussion on the article talk page rather than AfD. Mandsford gives a good reason why the list needs editing. DGG (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced OR. Support nominator's idea of making Tomboys in popular culture, though. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable phenomenon but the OR concern is justified. JJL (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is useful for people who have a hard time finding articles about characters relating to the topic. Mythdon (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a list based on arbitrary criteria. Who decides what characters are "otenba"? This is 100% OR. --DAJF (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them both as usual, a fannish bit of original research. the otenba could be salvaged if someone could find some notable discussion of the phenomenon, though again the list would require reliable discussion of each case. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No recommendation yet. While I'm not enthusiastic about the term "tomboy", I suspect that sources could be found that indeed identify many of these characters as tomboys (and everyone mentioned in the article is fictional, so there is no WP:BLP problem). If a source is added to the article for each character, then the original research problem could be solved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List of tomboys in fiction. The list has not been sufficiently sourced yet. No opinion as to Otenba. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is, however, only a few months old so it not being sufficient sourced "yet" should not be a problem as Wikipedia does not have a deadline. In any event it has improved from the original version versus the current version and we should give it more time to improve further as editors clearly seem willing to better this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But only two of the character listings have been sourced, and there are well over 100 characters on the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not a problem. Rather, it's a start. We don't have a deadline on Wikipedia; we're only several years old, whereas paper encyclopedias have had hundreds of years two develop now. Every second spent in an AfD is time not spent finding sources. It's like the X Files with "The Truth is Out There"; considering how bizarrely massive the Internet is and how many books, journals, and magazines are out there, sources exist for just about every topics any of us can imagine. I have typed in some incredibly obscure terms and people on Academic Search Primer and J-Stor and it people have academic interest in just about everything we can conceive of, which is perfectly fine if not encouraged. The more we catalog and organize human knowledge the better our species is for it and I whole-heartedly believe that there is no such thing as useless knowledge anyway. Snow, however, which I am about to attempt to shovel, well... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But the characterization of being a "tomboy" is based on gender stereotypes. I can accept the idea of identifying these characters according to how they allegedly fail to comply with the attitudes and behaviors of being a girl only if that characterization is supported by independent sources. The sources that have been supplied indicate that Jo from Little Women and George from the Famous Five have been characterized by others as being tomboys. But in the absence of sources, the inclusion of a character on this list is an endorsement by Wikipedia of those gender stereotypes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Enough books have been written with "tomboy" or "tomboys" in the title even that we should be able to pull something like this article off successfully once we patiently allow our editors to use these sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomboy is a recognized English word for this social phenomenon and has been in use (according to the wikipedia article Tomboy) since 1592, so I don't get the objection to the word. There is no "original research" involved in the Literature section at least, and the handful of names I checked out from "Other Media" seem to be legitimate, with the possible exception of "Velma" from Scooby-Doo. I don't know anything about Anime and Manga so I have no opinion on that front.Torkmusik (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After you get past 1592, here's what's next in the article... and this is what I'm talking about: "There is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. While it is true that some tomboys later reveal a lesbian identity in their adolescent or adult years, masculine behavior typical of boys but displayed by girls is not a true indicator of one's sexual orientation. Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normalcy of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey." The whole idea that a girl who chooses to, say, play basketball, should be labelled is a holdover from olden days when people were expected to "know their place". There are characters who were described as "tomboys" back from those days, but editors can pretty well throw any girl's name on this list... and they have. For those who think that this list is "useful", merge it back into the article, where there's some context provided. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if a girl is specifically referred to as a tomboy in the work in which she appears, it makes a difference whether the narrator calls her that, or some other character calls her that to insult her, or she calls herself that as an act of defiance, or … If she is not so described in the work, matters become even more subjective, and the concept of "source" becomes problematic in the extreme. The second sentence of this article's lead is a perfect example of the sort of unverifiable original research and opinion that underlies every actual or potential entry in the list. Deor (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three sentences that mention what a tomboy is are unsourced and rubber enough to cover most fictional females. There are no clear standards. Actual examples are unsourced and seem based only on editors personal opinion. For example, in the anime section female combat pilots are mentioned, yet female captains of warships are not. Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, discriminate list, covered in academic journals and books. I am not opposed to a rename of the article as Tomboys in fiction that expands on the information covered in these sources, but still includes the relevant examples from the list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List separately Though the articles in question are similar in topic, they are not similar in deletion rationale. One is nominated as an unmaintainable list, and the other is a dicdef. Linking these together is a recipe for a DRV overturn. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Otenba, now that I've thought about it: Keep and remand to the Anime-and-Manga and Japan wikiprojects for cleanup and sourcing. A little poking about convinces me that a substantive article can be written about the subject, especially one that contrasts how an otenba is like and unlike a western tomboy. It could be a neat and comprehensive article, after the list gets hella sourcing and pruning, and it's the potential we're supposed to be looking at here. If nothing little has been done after a time (I suggest a few months, given sources would be largely in Japanese) then revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article gets 600 views a month. Otenba got 1500 views in february. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And it's no less relevant to point out that the average price of gas is $3.15 a gallon nationwide, and Will Farrell's new movie "Semi-Pro" did pretty good at the box office this past weekend. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of tomboys in fiction and redirect otenba to tomboy. I cannot shake that the former is nothing more then original research and question whether the list serves a useful purpose. The later is simply a Japanese term but with no evidence that there is a uniquely Japanese aspects to it. And even if there are, why they shouldn't be covered by the main article (tomboy). --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not original research. It does not offer a thesis or argument and it is based on primary and secondary evidence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that such-and-such character is a tomboy is original research without sources to back up the claims. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Saying that "sources are out there" isn't enough either. You have to provide the sources. In fact, when I looked through the anime section of the list, there were several characters that were clearly not tomboys but where on the list simply because they are strong female characters, female warriors/fighters, look boyish, or simply because they have a violent side to their character or short tempered (tsundere). So is that a verifiability challenge to all of the uncited characters on the list? I guess you can say that it is. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reason to sprinkle fact tags on the list - it is not a reason to delete. See List of Internet phenomena which has been through this and is fine now. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to remove several anime and manga characters that were clearly not tomboys and tagged the rest of the section as original research. But this morning, I found someone has reverted the cleanup calling it vandalism. So I fact-tagged everything in the section and added the original research tags as well. The same editor also restored a similar list that was deleted through AFD as original research, which I've reverted. These lists are just magnets of original research and POV pushing, but ultimately they do not benefit the subjects they cover or Wikipedia. So I stand by by delete position. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone one better and just deleted the entire anime section. This is the English language wikipedia and so foreign language terms like otenba don't belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the list was restored, without the cleanup tags. *sigh* I've put the or and fact tags back because the problems with that portion of the list still haven't been addressed. As for otenba, I think it's better covered by the tomboys article. That is if it can be reliably sourced that the concept of a tomboy is significantly different in Japan then in the rest of the world. --Farix (Talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Tomboys in popular culture. The concept surely passes WP:V and WP:N -- there are WP:RS already in the "List" article, and more can be found easiy. There's a whole book just on characters in "To Kill a Mickingbird." Bearian (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and created such an article. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomboys in popular culture, which is in better shape than this article and more appropriately titled. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepby Merging into Tomboys in popular culture as there is a high degree of overlap to the point where there is little value in two separate articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closing admin. Tomboys in popular culture is nearly the exact same list as List of tomboys in fiction, but simply under a new name. So if this AFD is closed as delete, it should be deleted as well. --Farix (Talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least one or the other should be kept with the other redirected without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Destined to be POV-ridden, unless each and every listing receives a citation. That isn't going to happen. RGTraynor 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't say with certainty what will or will not happen and there's no reason why eventually sources can't and won't be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: That is true, if you fancy that there are a lot of reliable sources out there citing this or that fictional character as a tomboy. That aside, however, our directive on Wikipedia is to agressively remove material that fails of sourcing. RGTraynor 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the same time our directive is to allow editors the opportunity to find such sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, referring to Spider-Man (film series)#Future until there is consensus to branch it out. Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4 (2009 film)

WP:CRYSTAL all the way. The film has been confirmed but that's about it. There's not even confirmation whether Tobey Maguire will be back or not. On top of that, the entire page is ripped from the page for Spider-Man 3. Fails WP:NFF. Redfarmer (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned up the page to remove all irrelevancies, which does not leave much. Redfarmer (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until/unless some good sources can be found.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided. WP:CRYSTAL.--On the other side ^Contribs|@ 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this does happen it won't be for a while and nothing will be released on it for a long time. -- Carerra^"Chatter" 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's sourced; why not? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not sourced and it violates WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL? Redfarmer (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Spider-Man 4 redirects to Spider-Man (film series)#Future and has been there comfortably for many months. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CRYSTAL. ArcAngel (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep too big to not happen [7]. JJL (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a reason to keep an article. By WP:NFF, a future film is not notable until and unless it has entered production and there is verifiable information on it. All that's been said about this movie is it will probably happen. Redfarmer (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Superman Returns and Batman Begins literally took decades to return to the big screen. It is full-on speculation to say that this film *will* happen. All verifiable coverage of the project rests comfortably at Spider-Man (film series)#Future, where the impression of an actual film is appropriately downplayed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is entirely unverifiable and only sources such as IMDB say anything about the movie. Mythdon (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the criteria for speedy deletion are you arguing this falls under? Redfarmer (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Im not arguing anything. Mythdon (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you say speedy delete, you need to identify which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think it falls under. Otherwise, it does not qualify for speedy deletion and I really don't see a criteria it would fall under. Redfarmer (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for a temporary period in order to allow time for the article to be rebuilt after being gutted. I'm sure I've seen media coverage of the film - Kirsten Dunst was the subject of one news report connected to it. And if the film has been officially announced by a studio, then it isn't WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not saying to blindly keep it, but I feel an opportunity should be given for the article to be rescued. Otherwise someone will just recreate it an hour or a month after it's deleted anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not been announced by the studio, just the director in interviews. And the fact that it might be recreated is not a reason for keep. Per WP:NFF, a film is not notable until a film has gone into production. By the way, if anyone is curious, there is already a blurb on the possibility of the film at Spider-Man (film series)#Future. Redfarmer (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spider-Man 4 redirects to Spider-Man (film series)#Future, and the studio has already indicated the fourth film will be out in 2010, if it actually does. Alientraveller (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because content about Spider-Man 4 has been at Spider-Man (film series)#Future all this time. The content's placement in its own article completely fails to comply with the notability guidelines for future films. If, not when, production begins on this project, the article will be recreated at Spider-Man 4 because there is no other topic called "Spider-Man 4", so a (20XX film) extension is useless. There is zero guarantee that this film will happen -- look at how long the Batman and Superman films took to be resurrected. Keeping this article is severely misleading in conveying the impression that a film will be made, when the reality is that such projects are never guaranteed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not that there's much content anyway. The Dominator (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code Lyoko 2

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, makes this game un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources confirming any information about this game. While any potential sequel would be notable, it doesn't seem that there is any verifiable information available. --jonny-m t 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There is no credible source that this is planned to come out, or that it will ever come out. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though Ive seen mention of this thing quite a few times in primary sources, the only games I can actually confirm are ports of the Wii game. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Enigma ^msg! 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I trust this AfD will not be closed until the creator of the page has been unblocked and has had a chance to respond. Harry the Dog (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His block expired about five hours ago. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Crystal, indeed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I believe this is already covered by Code Lyoko: Quest for Infinity (although I'm not sure if the DS version will carry that same name. It looks like the PSP version will). --Pixelface (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this enough of a consensus to delete? Enigma ^msg! 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNOW? I'd say so. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have to consider whether the phrase is a likely search term. If there is a consensus to delete it, it should be removed from Template:Code Lyoko. --Pixelface (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would happen regardless of delete/redirect, since it's not confirmed to even be a separate game. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spoiled brats

AfDs for this article:

This article was already deleted per this discussion, but recreated at some point. It might qualify for CSD G4, but just in case it does not, delete it because it consists entirely of original research. I would also ask you to think twice before suggesting we merge this list into the main article Spoiled brat. This unsourced garbage doesn't belong there either. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced list that creates a list of the very arguable set of spoiled brats. --Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not Speedy Delete G4 as recreation of material deleted per the consensus established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (although as it had been more than a month since the article was recreated it might be better to make sure that consensus hasn't changed) but it doesn't seem like any of the issues brought up int he original AfD have been dealt with. The article is completely unreferenced, gives no criteria for inclusion and would always suffer from NPOV issues. Guest9999 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently, the creator of this article is now requesting deletion as well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't forget to remove the appropriate section in the Spoiled brat article when (and if) this gets deleted. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you worry about that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You leave it alone, It is going to stay like it or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has got to be the textbook definition of "point of view". One person's hero is another person's villain, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors who can't agree on this are just trying to be difficult. I just added Violet Elizabeth Bott. If this isn't kept, I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA recognized character type in fiction, and the relevance to individual cases can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "character type," as well as clearly notable examples, can be discussed in the spoiled brat article. No one's proposing that we delete that article. This ugly list, however, doesn't belong in either place.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irredeemable WP:OR and POV. Personally, I think there's a difference between a plain brat and a spoiled brat, but whoever's been contributing to this article clearly doesn't. Some of the entries would be extremely difficult to justify as brats at all, by any definition. Deor (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Guest, etc... Horrendous. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original researc, POV, and silly waste of time. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - get real! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my god, some people have quite the imagination. Way too difficult to maintain, calling a character a brat is original research. The Dominator (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and no indication of notability.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deor puts it best - obviously OR and POV. Edward321 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need? None at all. Original research? Absolutely, barring heavy sourcing. This isn't the type of list that is needed, or even useful. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow editors to find references. There are certainly references that identify these characters with this archetypal meme. Ursasapien (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it is anything but certain that there are references. The first name on the list, Tricia Cooke, yields 1 unrelated ghit. [8] The second name, Caitlin Cooke, yield 18 ghits, most of them from Wikipedia or mirrors. [9]. The next, Greeter Gods and Goddesses has 17 ghits, mostly from Wikipedia or mirrors. [10]. Ditto for Stanley. [11]. I tried a couple other names at random. All I find is unrelated sites or mirrors of this article. Can anyone find any independant sources for any of the dozens of names on this list? Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the above point sadly, unfortunately it will inviolve someone actually going to a decent-sized library such as one belonging to a university which will have a sizeable section on film and popular culture. The sad thing is the internet is not the be-all and end-all of published research. I am Basing my comment below on what I have seen in a voluminous library on pop culture and media in the past. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fairly central character-type in plot-fiction. There will be some scholarly material somehwere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced original research. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also say Keep and allow editors to find references. There are certainly references that identify these characters with this archetypal, common meme. If not, I'm gonna tell my mommy! ;) Angie Y. (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Discriminate, organized list concerning a notable and recognizable topic that is encyclopedic to editors, easily verfiable, has editors willing to work on the article, and is not original research as it contains no original thesis. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Labeling a character a "spoiled brat" is definitely more POV than fact-based. It's blatant original research. Beemer 69 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = beemer hits it on the nail- what publication is likely to use 'brat'? If they don't then its original research to label them as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some publications do use the phrase "spoiled brat" even in their titles. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Rogers (cricketer)

Borderline notability. He's a minor counties and second 11 cricket player and I'm not sure that this will get him in through WP:BIO. JASpencer (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appear to be reliable, independent sources listed. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - referenced or not, I don't see this meeting notability anywhere.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List A cricket is the highest level of one-day cricket below internationals, so I think this is good enough to pass WP:BIO. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at the highest possible level before becoming an international ergo is notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sincere but apparently ignorant nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCats (film)

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Johnny Depp's Shantaram among many others. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when production is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom (it must get really tiring to keep on nominating articles having to explain future film guidelines over and over, huh?). Could possibly be userfied if somebody is willing as it does contain useful, sourced info. The Dominator (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator; I couldn't have said it better myself. No problem with recreating the article if production does begin. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument on article deletion Do as you wish, but just for your information, the sole reason I created this article is because the main ThunderCats article, which is in severe need of cleanup, had a notification suggesting that a new article be created for the upcoming film. Was that a poor call on behalf of a Wikipedia administrator?

In addition, Wikipedia has a Category for 2010 films, which means that it includes articles on films currently in production and projected for a 2010 release just like ThunderCats. There may not be a great deal of information on this film yet, but the information we do have is well founded. If this is going to be deleted to do Writers Guild strike postponements, I'm sure there are plenty of other film articles read to be deleted as well. Cale (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The future films department of WikiProject Films have been doing just this -- see the clean-up. We have different approaches depending on the content. In the majority of the cases, mention of a project in development is placed at the original source, may it be a franchise or a director. Without the clean-up, you would definitely be seeing more "scheduled" films in the 2010 films category. The important difference to note is that because a project is in development does not ensure that it will actually be produced. This is very common in the film industry, no matter the significance of the source material -- see Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film) and Logan's Run (2010 film) as a couple examples of perpetual developments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since there is agreement that the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome, which does not only affect an important guideline, but also a core policy.Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (1987 computer game)

Contested prod, of a non-notable rare roguelike game[12]. Deprod reason is given as "removed prod template. I believe the deletion of this article may be controversial given the References section". Other then some blogish references in discussion about an open source version there are no reliable reference to the 1980's version of the game. The open source version is described in the article as "At present, development continues sporadically as a SourceForge project directed by William Tanksley". With no reliable sources for the original version and no notability for the incomplete open source version this article Fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, un-verified. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Omega is a real game. I spent many hundreds of hours playing it years ago, as well as porting it to new platforms, fixing the innumerable bugs (anyone else remember "grot"?) and otherwise being completely obsessed with it. Despite that, it's one of the most obscure games in the genre, and has received almost no attention from reliable sources appropriate for citation in Wikipedia. Someday, perhaps someone will write a book that has a chapter about Omega. At that point, we can re-write the article. But until such sources exist, we'll have to be consistent in our treatment of it. Nandesuka (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) Omega may seem obscure to some from the vantage of the present, but I must point out that it was distributed in the same fashion as Larn, Moria, Hack, etc. via comp.sources.games "back in the day", did prompt the formation of a Usenet group (granted, in the alt hierarchy and long since abandoned), and was as available as any contemporary to home PC users. I find fault with the characterization that it's "one of the most obscure games" in a genre riddled with throw-away titles, but can't contest that it is likely not the subject of significant treatment by independent, reliable sources. D. Brodale (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because it's one of the "obscure" games, it fails WP:N in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Here's an article about the game on About.com. That's makes the article in line with WP:V. This site says several roguelikes have achieved lasting fame and lists Omega as one of them. This site reviews Omega in comparison to other roguelikes, saying Omega "was the first Roguelike game with a significant plot." This site says Omega was the first roguelike game with a large wilderness. The newsgroup alt.games.omega was created in March 1992. Here's a post supposedly from the author. It was ported to Windows in 2003 by Geoff Dunbar. There is a version on SourceForge. This is a distribution page maintained by Erik Max Francis and it has many documents related to the game. I'm risking BEANS here, but we have article on other roguelikes, Moria, Hack, and Larn — along with everything in Category:Roguelikes. If that's not enough to keep, I would prefer redirection to Roguelike or List of roguelikes over deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The about.com link isn't an "article," it's just a direct listing of the package description from some Linux distribution. The tripalot site is a personal blog, as is the armchairarcade link. Nandesuka (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information still comes from About.com, a reliable source, even if they got it from somewhere else. I'm confused on your stance. You previously removed a prod tag from the article[13]. Later you mentioned the Windows port[14], you added 2 more citations[15], and then you added a prod tag yourself 6 minutes later.[16] On the talk page you said "Omega seems pretty much as notable and well-referenced (or not) as UltraRogue." and you argued to keep the UltraRogue article in its AFD. Do you want to delete this article because UltraRogue was deleted? Or have you just changed your mind? --Pixelface (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D. Brodale convinced me that I was mistaken. Our policies are pretty clear that we need reliable sources to have articles on topics. Nandesuka (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly notable within the roguelike genre. Xihr (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back that up, or is that just based on your personal experience? Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pixelface already gave the details and citations. Xihr (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable game, and while there are factions within Wikipedia who don't want any articles on any topic until Brittanica devotes a chapter to it (at which point one must ask what's the point of Wikipedia?), we aren't there yet. And there are sources as indicated above. 23skidoo (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Pixelface points out, there are numerous references to it within the rougelike genre. Obscure doesn't mean non-notable. --clpo13_(talk) 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to List of roguelikes, ~~summarize with a couple of sentences and cite it with the about.com piece.~~ Lacks the in-depth reliable sources to establish individual notability. The same could be done for others which don't have enough info for individual articles, though some of these games have been covered in reliable sources. Someone another 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to plain delete and redirect, there are subjects we can cover properly and the focus should be on them, not messing around trying to build articles out of nothing. Someone another 11:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no. I have to agree with Nandesuka that the about.com "piece" isn't what it's being made out to be. Redirecting to List of roguelikes with a short summary to excuse a de facto article deletion will become an open invitation for everyone and his or her dog or cat to wedge a listing of their pet roguelike known only to three people, developer included. D. Brodale (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the About.com page comes from the listing of a Debian package. But as far as Unix games from the 1980s go, this game seems fairly notable to me (although not as notable as NetHack). Omega was ported to MS-DOS, the Amiga, BeOS, Macintosh, and Windows (and also the Atari ST and OS/2 from what I've seen). It appears a new Windows version was created as recently as last month. There are 2,020 results for "omega" in the newsgroup rec.games.roguelike.misc[17], spanning 1993 to the present (that's over 1/4 of the messages in the group). People have written FAQs[18], spoilers[19], hints[20], and an FAQ on roguelikes in general[21]. Omega has an entry on MobyGames[22] This interview with Rick Saada (who developed the roguelike Castle of the Winds, published by Epic MegaGames in 1989) said Rogue, Larn, Omega, and Nethack were inspirations to him. This article from Salon.com from January 2000 says "On my recent visit to Blizzard North to preview the game company's wildly anticipated sequel to its hit role-playing game Diablo, Blizzard's designers readily acknowledged their debt to Nethack and other "Roguelikes" -- games of single-player dungeon questing." Roguelikes have been influential in the computer gaming world. --Pixelface (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not talking about whether there are reliable sources for "roguelikes", we're talking about whether there are reliable sources for Omega. That you are reduced to citing the Salon.com article, which does mention NetHack and doesn't mention Omega, speaks volumes. Yes, yes, yes, there are plenty of reliable sources for the idea of the "roguelike" as influential. Yes, yes, yes, there are plenty of reliable sources for NetHack being influential. But we're talking about this article, not some other article. The sources we have for Omega -- a game that I immensely enjoy -- are terrible. USENET posts? A few blogs? Random walkthroughs? Nandesuka (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to keep in mind that this was never a retail game, I believe it's freeware. The author released the source and people are still developing the game over two decades later. The DMOZ directory gives a good overview. The Amiga port by Klavs Pedersen, AmiOmega, was on Fish Disk #320 (v1.0) and #528 (v1.5). I don't know if Computer and Video Games magazine ever reviewed Omega but I'll check a few issues. This site by Travis Emmitt looks like a good resource for reviews of roguelikes, even though it's not a magazine or newspaper. Personally, I've never played it. But reading that it was the first roguelike with a large countryside and a significant plot sounds notable to me. Omega influenced Rick Saada, the developer of a game published by Epic Games. --Pixelface (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Omega influenced Rick Saada, the developer of a game published by Epic Games" is a good example of dubiously chaining things together to manufacture notability, which is not inherited. Inclusion on Fish Disk is a terribly low threshold to meet; it was not a refereed software publication. As noted above by Nandesuka, the "Roguelike Review" site is a personal site of Travis Emmitt; by Wikipedia standards, it is not a reliable source, nor is the tone and nature of Omega's capsule summary there particularly compelling. I'm personally the one who categorized the Omega information at dmoz.org, and wouldn't characterize it as anything other than a potluck. I'm not sure what your mention of it above means to accomplish. D. Brodale (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the statement regarding the game's persistence ("The author released the source and people are still developing the game over two decades later.") is a gloss. In actuality, someone will occasionally produce a port or revamp; there has been no sustained development pattern with Omega apart from W.Tanksley's, which foundered for any number of reasons and never amounted to much other than a talking point for WT while discussing development issues on Usenet. Irrelevant to this AfD, but interesting nonetheless, is that the source "release" is perhaps one of the most confused aspects to Omega. I don't think it profitable to imagine patterns that in reality don't exist, let alone use them as underpinnings to arguments about notability. This particular argument I don't quite follow, myself. D. Brodale (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nandesuka's analysis up-thread: we here should not confuse this particular game with its parent genre. The only two sources that might be considered reliable either do not mention Omega (the Salon puff piece on NetHack) or do so as a passing mention that cannot be considered significant coverage (the Gamasutra interview). The remaining six, externally-linked resources are unreliable. In most cases, they are not independent of the subject in question (FAQs, spoilers, hints, etc.); the others stem from pseudonymous venues (Usenet) or a site unrecognized as means to establish primary notability (MobyGames), unless I missed a memo. D. Brodale (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game was influential and made innovations in its genre. That the game exists is verifiable. The game can be written about neutrally. And we have several sources we can cite, including the game itself. The sources may not be newspapers, but they corroborate each other. Omega had players doing more than "simply wandering round a dungeon"[23]. Omega "started all the craze of overworld roguelikes"[24] Omega was "the first roguelike game to feature large wilderness"[25] Omega "is the first Roguelike game to feature a wilderness which connects several towns"[26] There are newsgroups devoted specifically to Nethack, Angband, Moria, and Omega. I realize that inclusion on a Fish Disk may be unremarkable, but the game began on Unix, not the Amiga. The article may not meet WP:RS or WP:N, but they are not policy yet. --Pixelface (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one contests the game's mere existence. However, in linking to Wikipedia's verifiability policy above, you ought to have noticed that it rests upon the use of reliable sources. I encourage you to re-read that policy in full. The extent of the subject's influence and innovation is asserted rather than reliably documented, and the links offered above require assessment and characterization to appreciate fully, rather than enumeration. I'll begin at the end of your remarks, though, and ask what you mean by stating that reliability of sources, especially with regard to notability, is "not policy"? I'm unaware of any practice common to Wikipedia that asks editors to toss aside both issues so brazenly. I'm also left wondering whether that final statement is your concession to the lack of reliable sources that establish the notability of Omega. It would seem so. Contrary to your opening remarks, no one is asking for "newspapers", and it's misleading to restate earlier requests for reliable documentation as such. That the materials you have collated corroborate one another could be the result of any number of reasons, among them parroting. In particular, I would note that the second link offered above is a copy/paste of the first, with a hyped introduction tacked on with no basis given whatsoever. In order, you have offered the personal site of someone developing a version of the game, what amounts to a blog about roguelikes, a four-sentence synopsis on another personal site, and an archived reposting of a Usenet FAQ from what was a (had the term been coined then) blog. None of these address the core concern expressed above, several times, for reliable sources, independent of the subject at hand, that devote significant attention in order to establish the notability of this particular game. It's irrelevant that Usenet groups exist for NetHack, Angband, or Moria, though if you want to press the point, there is rather wide divide between the establishment of a group within the rec hierarchy (as for those three) and one within the alt hierarchy (as for Omega). So much so that I'm unmoved to consider the latter establishment irrefutable evidence of a subject's notability. I'm glad that we agree that inclusion on Fish Disk is unremarkable, though I don't quite follow how the originating platform for a piece of software factors in given my earlier discussion of this point. D. Brodale (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody contests the game's existence, you're arguing about notability, which is not a policy. The game exists and the article can use the game as a primary source, per WP:PSTS. An interview with the developer of Castle of the Winds *is* a reliable source that the game was influential. Can you cite another roguelike that featured a large wilderness and was released before this game? Otherwise, I have no reason to believe that claim is a rumor. If you still challenge the claim that it was the first roguelike to feature a large wilderness, that claim can simply be left out of the article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As described both above and below, notability requires use of reliable sources that cover a subject in significant detail. Existence alone is a terribly low threshold for inclusion, lest Wikipedia devolve into a morass unfitting of an online encyclopedia. I will remind you again that mention of Omega is passing within the noted interview, and does not constitute significant coverage. I strongly encourage participants to review the interview in question and note that mention is both unexplained and not directly attributed to Saada himself. Regardless, notability is not inherited, as explained in detail above. Regarding everything else, I believe I made it rather clear that the nature of my challenge rests in large part with the lack of reliable sources for any claim one may attach to Omega. The one potentially reliable source you've identified makes no significant statement whatsoever about the subject of the AfD. As for WP:PSTS, could you please expand on your perspective? I find no indication therein that it trumps the need for reliable sources, nor that it serves as a substitute for independent verification of a subject, especially with regard to its notability. If the most Wikipedia can state reliably about Omega is that it exists, I fear the burden asked for in this AfD has not been met. D. Brodale (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak gut-feeling keep. Omega certainly has a long history and is also very much known among people who play roguelikes... (ah, and all those memories - I learned a lot about C programming by looking at this game's source code...) but aside of that, I have absolutely no idea if there's any kind of documentation that would say this game satisfies our notability criteria. Sad, really. If any such material surfaces, this is a definite keeper. If not, this "keep" !vote is basically me trying to make a harp play by blowing at it. But such sources could conceivably materialise, that's what I'm saying. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the article in question has been tagged with an open request for reliable sources since November 2006, but to no avail? I'm a bit perplexed at a vote to keep, weak as it is, on the basis of a possibility that hasn't materialized in almost eighteen months. D. Brodale (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing odd about an inclusionist wiki-philosophy. --clpo13_(talk) 05:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is if it places an undue burden upon editors to entertain notions of an unknowable future when present needs of a substantive nature are to be met. This is an AfD, not a colloquium. D. Brodale (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, often it's the case that while there's no sources in the article there actually is useful sources somewhere, and people are just too damn lazy to add them to the article, and AfD nominators are even lazier at fixing things before hauling them here. It's always up to the interpretation and further research whether "tagged for more sources since 2006" means "no sources actually exist" or "no one's been that interested in improving sourcing of an article about a relatively obscure game". Based on the debate here, I'd say the lack of sourcing is a legitimate concern in this case and I'm very inclined to believe the former; all I'm saying it could very well conceivably also be the latter. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of my comment, in a more straightforward form: "This game has been around for a while, so obviously we should have an article about it; shame we don't have sources though. I'm just !voting Keep because the game is pretty famous in its own circles, but I'm well aware that that alone is not going to save the article (always be wishful in your thinking) - we'd need actual sources." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For both remark blocks above, I get your drift, but I know I took a stab at turning up reliable sources in the past (prompting my rantish post last October to the article's Talk page), and even though I shouldn't speak for Nandesuka, I would hazard to guess that he must have made a similar attempt prior to nomination here. Regardless, as I'm about to state below (or have already, depending on how one reads this AfD), longevity alone is no lock on notability, something that should not be presumed. D. Brodale (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I've articulated above (at length, ad nauseum) in response to the only developed opinion in favor of retention, by Pixelface. I'm unmoved by the remaining arguments along those lines, as three (Xihr, clpo13, 23skidoo) appear willing to rest on the strength of Pixelface's position alone, and the fourth (wwwwolf) is admittedly half-hearted and contingent on a possibility with no demonstrable likelihood of coming to pass. Longevity is not notability, nor do I see signs of reliable sources that contribute significant material toward recognition of the subject's notability. Obscure or not, Omega fails to meet Wikipedia standards and practices for inclusion on those grounds. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but to date I simply cannot agree that any of the resources linked-to above constitute adequate evidence per WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:N. D. Brodale (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unmoved by the claims of "nn" by Jack Merridew (who is currently involved in an arbitration case with me, along with Eusebeus). WP:N is not a policy. I cannot see how an article on this game would necessarily violate WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV. I'm further confused by the quixotic behavior of Nandesuka — who previously removed a prod from this article in the past and then re-added a prod later, in violation of policy — which is the whole reason this article was listed for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be more productive to assume good faith on the part of participants and discuss the substance of this AfD, rather than cast what might be interpreted as (potentially acrimonious) aspersions on fellow editors here. The matter is already before us all for discussion; I don't grasp the relevance of the path it took in getting here. It also seems to me that the arbitration case is a concern external to this AfD, and that Nandesuka did provide a response to the query reiterated above. Would you care to discuss your disregard for the guidelines formulated as WP:N? It is terribly difficult to assess your position when it amounts to out-of-hand dismissal. I would point you to the summarization offered at WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, which succinctly delineates why I'm unable to address your stated concern. Notability, to me, seems to be a core issue that should be discussed, rather than swept under the rug. Based on communal practice, and given that most would agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, notability borne out by verifiable information from reliable sources seems a reasonable starting point in distinguishing materials that could be the subject of articles from those that probably should not. I've already explained how the evidence brought to light in this AfD fails WP:V, and again, urge you to re-read that policy with particular attention to the relation it shares with WP:RS. As stated there: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I must reiterate that I can find no reason to disregard this directive, and it would appear that you also hold WP:V in some high regard. Mention of WP:OR and WP:NPOV seem out of place above, but I welcome explanation as to why you chose to cite them. D. Brodale (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained by D. Brodale. I do think this game is notable in some sense, and should have an article about it - but on a wiki about roguelikes or about computer games and not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some - in my opinion rather clear - guidelines on what we want articles about and on what not. And a game which has not received any attention by the general public falls into the latter category. --Minimaki (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second: I noticed that the article in question is available on the Japanese wikipedia. I can't even properly view Japanese characters, let alone read them. However, there may be some editor who speaks both English and Japanese. Let's find that editor and see what the article says. It may very well be a translation of the English article, or it may contain some new information. I would hold off on the vote tallying until we can evaluate the Japanese article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in asking, but it seems rather clear that the article in question fails to reference any sources whatsoever and links to an external resource that could not reasonably be considered independent of the subject (the Official Distribution Page maintained by E.M. Francis). Automated translations don't suggest to me that there's much if anything directly related to the concerns voiced above. But again, I see no harm in asking if a willing volunteer is to be found. D. Brodale (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Francis is somehow related to Brothers? --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary subject of the article in question is Omega, not L. Brothers. D. Brodale (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think Francis is independent from the 1987 game Omega? --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what I think, as the page in question shows no evidence of being a reliable source; it's a file repository. That it self-identifies as an/the "Omega official distribution page" certainly calls into question its independence from Omega. Honestly, I'm puzzled by this line of questioning. D. Brodale (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "references" in the article don't appear to be reliable sources. Delete unless properly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filling Station magazine

Delete nn magazine Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This estimate (that it's NN) doesn't seem to be agreed by an academic source, Writing in Our Time: Canada's Radical Poetries in English (1957-2003), a book written by By Pauline Butling and Susan Rudy. There are a number of relevant and substantial non-trivial references in the work to the magazine, in particular at pages 43, 46, 137. Some useful info also at page 112. Also see Srdja Pavolvic Threshold: An Anthology of Contemporary Writing from Alberta, or better the opening essay titled "Imaginary Alberta", The Literary History of Alberta, p. 182, on the literary context and general nature of the magazine; and this is just a very fast look at books.google.--Aldux (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Aldux makes a good case for notability--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aldux. ArcAngel (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casella Waste Systems

In and among the press releases and earnings statements there's one article about the community's response to the company's planned expansion but I find no evidence that the company is notable or passes WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. As a waste management / recycling / disposal business ("waste manufacturing company" doesn't strike me as the happiest description) it is likely to be involved enough in public affairs that a properly referenced article could be written, and the one news story already found may only be the tip of the iceberg. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable corporation, plenty of good cites abound. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment where? I've seen no evidence to prove this is anything but a local org TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Walt Disney World. Blueboy 96 13:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WDW Resorts

This is not an article. It's a mirror of Template:WDW Resorts. Whoville (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only criterion under which they're argued as notable is the base criterion of non-trivial coverage in third party reliable sources; User:Hello Control effectively refutes this. In any event, there seems to be only one editor supporting keeping the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of Invisibles

Non-notable group. One album, no hits, minimal media attention. Claim of a tour is not supported by references. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's very telling that none of the groups involved have their own articles and that the single release was done on their own private label. --jonny-m t 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the members have their article, but it doesn't mean the group isn't notable. Also, Babygrande Records is a notable label. Spellcast (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Babygrande is notable but they've only got one release, not the two required by WP:MUSIC —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC #1 as seen by the article's references and infobox reviews on their first album, The Society of Invisibles (album). I agree this needs a lot of clean up, but AfD is only meant to determine notability. Spellcast (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references as they stand: [27]: an article about the band = non-trivial; [28]: they charted on a retailer-specific sales chart—per WP:CHARTS, should be removed; [29]: a short article about an upcoming show = borderline non-trivial; [30] one paragraph in a long review of a music showcase = trivial; [31] the band's label's website = not 3rd party. Also note that all of the articles are from the same local paper. Sure the album got some reviews, it was released by Babygrande, but also note that some of them are on exceedingly non-notable sites (faygoluvers.net?). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In fact, a single album release fails WP:MUSIC; a band must have multiple releases to qualify under #1. Beyond that, the album article has no citations to back up its purported critical reviews; we may have a walled garden here. RGTraynor 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. This does appear to hve never been released. Moving this to Born to Try (album) to preserve history, then redirecting that to Delta Goodrem. Moving Born to Try (song) to this name. Black Kite 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Try

AfDs for this article:

Unreleased album with minimal media coverage that appears to have been canceled—I was unable to find any indication that this album is still scheduled for release. Fails WP:MUSIC. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Rather than redirect, I think moving Born to Try (song) to Born to Try makes more sense. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge info into Delta Goodrem article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Born to Try. This article plainly hasn't been touched in a while, and since the album has vanished off the landscape ... Ravenswing 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice against possible merger. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of My Lies Are True (Sooner or Later)

Some_of_My_Lies_Are_True_(Sooner_or_Later) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Request DELETION of this page and Don't Ever Tell Me That You Love Me as non-notable singles by Huey Lewis & The News. Having just the article for the album from which they came, Huey Lewis and the News (album), is notable enough in that it is the debut album by the popular '80s rock group. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Generally speaking singles of notable bands are considered notable themselves, even if the single came out "before they were famous". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to the album. This single didn't chart, and it's not the subject of any sources; therefore ,it isn't notable on its own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the outcome of this AFD it would be reasonable (though not necessary) to merge and redirect to the article about the album, but this explicitly does not require an AFD discussion, particularly when no meaningful reason to delete this has been provided. — CharlotteWebb 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I guess a Redirect to Huey Lewis and the News (album) is in order, according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs.
- These songs have not been ranked on national or significant music charts, have not won significant awards or honors and have not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups.
- There is not enough verifable material, or non-verifiable material for that matter, to warrant a detailed article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With permission, and upon the archiving of this AfD discussion, I will perform the redirect. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to the album. (Be sure to include the cover.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Cauldwell#Education. The school is already mentioned there, so I will leave it to other editors to be bold if they want to merge any more content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Middle School

This middle school is not notable. The three sentence article is just a basic listing. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district or delete otherwise. Non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Cauldwell#Education to where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new section under Cauldwell#Education. The page has been expanded and is now informative but it still doesn't contain enough secondary sourced material that I can argue for it being kept. However, it is still being worked on and I'm happy to alter my view if the necessary sources are found. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont see why Abbey middle school should be deleted, all other middle schools in Bedford are listed on wikipedia. For the purposes of classification Bedfordshire LEA classes its Middle Schools as secondary schools and some of the middle schools originally started life as secondary-Modern Schools. Why should Abbey Middle School not have its own wikipedia article when other middle schools in Bedford do? Bleaney (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now researched and greatly expanded the article on Abbey Middle School. I really now think the wikipedia article should stand. Bleaney (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike most of the United Kingdom, in Bedfordshire there is a three-tier education education system. Some middle schools are deemed as secondary schools, some as primary. All the middle schools in Bedfordshire are deemed secondary as stated by Bleaney above. Now, looking at the article guidelines at WP Schools, it does quote as proposed for notability "In practice most high schools/secondary schools in the English-speaking world can easily satisfy these criteria", however it also proposes "The majority of middle schools/junior high schools are also unlikely to satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria". So it's a tough one to call as the school in question falls into both camps. Incidently, there are a few middle schools with their own article at Middle Schools in England, does this mean they may be listed at Afd too? --Starrycupz (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current policy proposal is at WP:School. However, the page doesn't yet meet that standard nor WP:N from first principles (and as regulars on here know I am not slow to defend defensible school pages!). I have provided the creator guidance on my talk page. This school was in special measures and the story as to why, and how it came out, can be sourced. That, with some of the other material available, may well be enough when added but it needs to be done quickly. TerriersFan (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also I have a referenced source indicationg that the school WAS a Secondary Modern School until Bedfordshire LEA's reorganisation in the 1970's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am relisting to enable other people to see the new version of the article which is significantly different to what was initially nominated. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no matter how exquisite the article, it's still non-notable.--—TreasuryTag talkcontribs 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to its town per WP:SCL, in this case Bedford#Education. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's a private school then delete, but if its a public school then its notable in my book.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is most definitely a public school, operated by the Bedfordshire LEA. TerriersFan (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a source on the page in any way shows notability of this school. All they say is that it exists. I don't get this public vs private argument, so I'm defaulting to sourcing, which is absent. Paddy Simcox (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new section under Cauldwell#Education or delete. Keeping is not a decision that is affected by what type of school it is (public v private}. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some believe that any school paid for by taxpayers is notable, while others would have to satisfy the WP:ORG standards. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as obvious spam. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy 96 13:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marquee magazine

No sources to indicate notability or more than local interest. Clear case of COI: only contributions of author Marquee Mag (talk · contribs) are this article and insertion in other articles of references to it and links to its website. PROD removed by author. JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really notable, and very spammy/promotional in tone (see how "FREE" is in all caps?). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as Spam, Spam, Spam, Egg and Spam. a Conflict of Interest as well as it was created by an editor named Marquee Mag. So basically, the magazine is using Wikipedia as an advertising service Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Products Group

Delete Fails WP:V. These sources [32], [33] are two news releases and do not describe the subject in detail. Google search shows 18 ghits [34], but significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source is lacking. No hint in google news search [35]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet the primary notability criterion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Apparently a group within a larger company, as well. No independent notability is obvious in the text, and this is a tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. May possibly be notable in the future, but this is just advertising. Black Kite 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WowWee Rovio

Delete advertising for a nn product unveiled at last month's CES, just shy of blatant spam, but spam it is nonetheless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please assume good faith. Hazillow (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is spam, all of their articles on Wikipedia are spam. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't see any reason to assume bad faith here, but all we have is press releases and forums that don't pass WP:RS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. No news: [36], but has over 10,000 Ghits: [37] Bearian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flayva

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverified and apparently autobiographical. Marasmusine (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely seems to be autobiographical. Casull (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by a user named "Flayva", so its an autobiography, and a conflict of interest with no reliable sources. Also fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources cited, and I couldn't find any reliable ones. Only online material I found, period, was her MySpace page. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite speedy-able, but definitely not notable. faithless (^speak) 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet the criteria on WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Just escapes an A7 or G11 speedy by the skin of her chinny-chin-chin. Come back when you actually get on the charts. Blueboy 96 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:RS and possibly WP:COI also. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of argument is on the side of deletion, a decision made somewhat easier by the fact that the content of the article is basically just a listing of the officers.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrom Federation of Sri Lanka

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not about Carom billiards, played on a pool table, but about Carrom which is a board game. While we do have articles such as United States Chess Federation, such articles still have to demonstrate notability of the subject (as with USCF, which has 80,000 members, has publications and sponsors championships. While carrom may be very popular in Sri Lanka, the article doesn't indicate that this group is notable. Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I can ascertain, this is the national governing body for carrom. It's noted in the International Carrom Federation article, and on the ICF website. The article does need a lot of work, but a national governing body in a sport is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per article improvements, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Germino

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, Keep meets WP:MUSIC criterion #5 with two albums on RCA. Also meets criterion #1 for composers, as he co-wrote Kenny Chesney's single "I Will Stand". He also seems to have a decent All Music Guide bio, which I can't access right now because AMG's server seems to be on the fritz. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom, sources have been given now and notability established. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 as notability was not even asserted. Blueboy 96 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8 Boy Records

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G7--blanked by author. Blueboy 96 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAOK HC

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete author has blanked page. JuJube (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Ian Gendelman

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Winningham

Non-notable former local politician with criminal conviction. News coverage appears to be strictly local based on Google search and check of some major newsgathering sites. Risker (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's referenced... TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A council member for a city of 7,000 has negligible notability. Committing a crime is, unfortunately, something even non-notable people do, and that doesn't automatically make them notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He was in a position of power within a council (ie. respect) AND was convicted for possession of child pornography. To me, this means a weak keep simply because of the "fall from grace" associated with such a crime. It's referenced and it has at least some notability. SMC (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as a city councillor he would not be very notable, and a user of child pornography that does not give him much notability (perhaps notoriety). Putting the two together, given that there are only local sources gives very marginal notability. I would be inclined to delete and given WP:BLP, I don't think we should have an article on him only due to his criminality. EJF (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than a run of the mill councillor and criminal. Not notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; as per Dhartung. I'm sure that I can find many, many references in the Alva Review Courier to the mayor and city councillors of Alva, Oklahoma; that doesn't make them worth articles. Newspapers aren't great sources at best--articles have very narrow focus--and they're especially bad for biographies, which need to be more than "city councillor and the crimes he's done."--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A city councillor of a city of population 7,139 would not normally be notable--only for major cities. The minimum here here has been at 100,000--there are 259 cities List of United States cities by population that size or larger, though I would go even higher--there are a few cases where 50,000 has been accepted, but certainly not 7,000. A minor criminal conviction does not make him the more notable. This is a why we have the one-event part of BLP. It's missued when it applies to people of national interest. It's correctly used for cases like this. DGG (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons give above Professor marginalia (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non notable for his position on the council, which becomes notable for the incident and refusal to stand down. Also, its properly referenced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Too regional in scope. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly notable for a single incident. If the incident was notable (which I doubt), an article can be created on it, per WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx (novel)

individual book not notable; notable author is not "so historically significant" per WP:BOOK. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Canley (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Google news search for jinx "meg cabot" turns up some sources that could be cited. --Pixelface (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some articles from Google News that establish notability: Here's a book review from the St Petersburg Times (the review was written by a 12-year-old, but we don't have an age limit on authors of WP:RS!). There is another article here 'Jinx' connects Iowa, N.Y. girls that is behind a paywall. Bláthnaid 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete both as demonstratable hoaxes. Author has been warned as well. Blueboy 96 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Arriazu Garcia

I suspect these two articles (the only contributions from their creator) are a hoax. Google searches on various variants of the titles return nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Jfire (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, or a hoax: one of those. — TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems implausible that he could be nobility with absolutely no sources backing it up. Probable hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hind Hassan

Non-notable university student. Her only news coverage is in connection with protests of a university lecturer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. Jfire (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--— TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable enough. SMC (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. No notability whatsoever.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, non-notable. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I worked on this article to add some sourcing while it existed and definitely thought there were questions as to notability. The sources I added are the sum total of anything I found about the student. I think the sources can be used to cite his article, but she doesn't need her own. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep faithless (^speak) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Romance Of Helen Trent

Empty, no context, no explanation. An album article which contains nothing but a track list is not an encyclopedia article. My speedy tag was removed with no explanation and no notification. Corvus cornix_talk 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) NOTE - Moved to The Romance of Helen Trent (album), since the capitalization of "of" was wrong, and there's an article already for the correct cap. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's an album for a notable band. Undeath (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability must be asserted; a link to the official site doesn't constitute an independent reliable source.--— TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, albums by notable bands are almost always themselves notable, there is heaps of precedent for this. However, I'm not all that convinced that The Killing Tree are notable. Keep for now, until the band's notability is established (or not). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The Killing Tree is notable because it was created by Tim McIlrath from Rise Against. The album is now notable, source wise, with the sources I have provided. Undeath (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is apparently notable, so the same applies to their album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AMG review added. That should be sufficient. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite appearances, this actually isn't even particularly close, given the various "keep" votes with no defense and the assorted SPAs on the keep side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Ukrainian political crisis

The current entry is an example of original research and an opinion piece on current affairs in Ukraine. It violates at least the following two wikipedia policies - WP:No original research and WP:SOAP, and consequently should be deleted.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an essay, is always going to attract ethno-warrior-editors, never going to hold a NPOV.— TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to have been more than a U.S. Senate filibuster, but less than a parliamentary crisis of the Westminster system variety. The parliament was non-functional for a while, but this seems to have passed. The government itself was not in danger of falling, from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, far too much original research for my liking. EJF (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (on reflection) Having removed the fictitious "NATO membership" and OR concerning implications of resignations from OU, what's left - regardless of who authored it - is an accurate and factual description of the notable current and emerging crises in Ukraine this year. The one objection I can see to the article in its present form is that because the events are still unfolding the article is being written as news rather than a concise summary with the benefit of hindsight. NOT#NEWS does not prevent this, but it does demand historical notability. If that means that we must wait until we can judge the impact of the present events on Ukraine's history then so be it. To Dhartung: the blockade continues, the speaker is powerless to convene parliamentary sittingsand the opposition is dictating the terms under which it will temporarily lift the blockade in order to allow debate of specific draft laws of its choosing. Sounds like a crisis to me. To YWP (below): the defections from OU are the least of the issues; the major issue is the ongoing paralysis of the parlament by the opposition. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is was blocked on Feb. 5 the other issue is tyhe mass resignation of members from the President's party Our Ukraine. Attemps top delete this article is further examples of selective sensorship which brings Wikipedia into distrpute
Delete The United States have had worse situations, with no mention on Wikipedia. This article reads like it was written about the "Our Ukranian" Party collapsing, which would be a different article. I would either delete or rename this article, and find more sources. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but wait till the blockade is over) cause if it continous there is a crises. The part about Our Ukraine seems to have nothing to de with the blockade or crises and can be placed at Our Ukraine (I already did that anyhowe!) and deleted from this article. Unless somebody can come up with a good source that there related! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone has changed the results of this survey and removed the names and changed the results. Thisi stink of corruypt practices and bias editing... There is more tpo the curret politcial crisis the the Anti NATGO protest. What about the mass resigatyion of members of the Presidets party Our Ukraine. Yes there is a cocerrted campiogn of seclective bais editig on Wikipedia. Is it offical Policy of Wikipedia top preset a partican point of view. Such policy ad removal of votes brings wikipedia into disrepure. View history files. WARNING This vote will also be removed by the looks of it... SHAME SHAME SHAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.45.14 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently removed 1 vote (sorry non intended), the other results you are talking about where old talkpage comments (see talk:2008 Ukrainian political crisis) from User:Timberframe and me. They shouldn't be copied to this page anyhowe cause if User:Timberframe and me would find that necesary we would have done it ourself! If we kept them User:Timberframe and me would have voted twice... (I'm sure Putin wouldn't have a problem with that but I do...). While removing his and mine comments I acidently removed 1 I shouldn't have. Mistakes happen, I'm not a computer... Whatch out you don't become the boy who cried wolf... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Its all WP:OR. Ostap 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to suggestions (made on the article's talk page) that use of the word crisis is OR - see the following sources for use of the word by a wide spectrum of politicians and media. My point is not to oppose the deletion proposal but to challenge the apparently uniformed basis of comments which are being used to promote its deletion.

[38] 11 February 2008 "Viktor Yanukovych considers early elections or reformation of the coalition as possible ways of solution of parliamentary crisis"
[39] 15 February 2008 "Adam Martynyuk, is sure that the NATO question has led to the parliamentary crisis"
[40] 18 February “The only possible solution of the parliamentary crisis must be found in the parliament,” Yushchenko stated.
[41] 21 February 2008 "[Lytvyn] is sure that the crisis in the parliament will not end soon"
[42] 25 February 2008 "Ivan Kyrylenko thanked his colleagues for consent to discuss political agreement and ways out of political crisis in public."
[43] 26 February 2008 "Chairman of the VRU Arseniy Yatsenyuk considers that there is no parliamentary crisis in Ukraine." [included for balance]
[44] 1 March 2008 "Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Vasiunyk believes that the aim of the congress is to escalate the political and parliamentary crisis in the country"
[45] 28 February 2008 "Yanukovych announced that preliminary parliamentary election or reformatting of the coalition may be way out of the political crisis."
[46] 26 February 2008 "Кириленко: «Регіоналам» важливіший візит до Брюселя, аніж подолання парламентської кризи" (Kyrylenko: The visit to Brussels is more important for the “regionals”, than overcoming the parliamentary crisis)
[47] 25 February 2008 "the political agreement which is the way of overcoming the parliament crisis proposed by the speaker"
[48] 18 february 2008 "The only possible solution of the parliamentary crisis should be found within the parliament's walls,"

-- Timberframe (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. But I stand by my opinion. Ostap 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya had a crisis; Belgium had a parliamentary crisis; Ukraine had one after the 2006 election. But there is no crisis in Ukraine in 2008, so far. These links quote interested parties who use the crisis phrase, because they are trying to frame it as a "crisis" in the media. When there was a crisis in 2006, it wasn't just the interested parties that described it as a crisis, it was journalists, editorials, experts, other governments. We don't see that right now. If you survey general news sources, the only crisis they mention that is happening in Ukraine presently is the one involving natural gas (Russia-Ukraine gas dispute). At the moment, this entry is premature, and should be deleted.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Omg... keep. Keep, or else. (just kidding)--Alisyn^talk 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whatever it is, whatever the degree, any kind of significant political dispute or issue warrants an article provided we have enough information available to write about it. Everyking (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, attempts to remove the article is an blatat act of censorhip at its worst. suggestion that the crisis is a Parliamentary Crisis and as such not a Political crisis is a joke. More examples of the blantant attempts at political censorhip. Likewise the suggestion that the article should remain until the crisis is over also brings wikipedia into disrepute. The 2007 crisis is over? Should we obliterate it from the historical records. LOL The same group of editors continue to push their non NPOV by seeking to remove aynthing that is critical of the political force that they support. Today the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliemet admited it was a politcal/Parlaimentary crisis. If it is related to the parliament it is politcial but teh crisis is much more the a parliametary crisis there is the resigtation of a political party and the gas dispute with Russia and Ukraine's relationship with Europe all facing a crisis Kurtdaydo (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's only a small event in a parliament. Only because of some disagreement and people walked out? Move to wikinews, not here. Dekisugi (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL It is much more the that.. members of the Governig coalition and President's policitcal party have resigned,Loss of partlaimetray majoorty as a result, the gas dispute has fired up again between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. This is a record of historical fact and not news. The same situtaion in the 2007 politcial crisis the opposition refused to particapate in Parlaimentary sessions. Spunge the issue from history and place a baner on Wikipedia Only pro Presidential and Government articles allowed (Even if it is historical fact) I guess the riots that lead to the Georgian Polictal cruisis was just news accordig to your accout. The same tactic by the same group of editors was applied to the Ukrainian Constitutional Court crisis. deny ad prevent hsitorical facts from beig presented or seeing the light of day. SHAME SHAME SHAME.. Remove the 2007 policitcal crisis article as well.. :) Come tomorrow the Parliament will have breached the 30 day limit as the last time the parliamentary session was held was on February 5. The it becomes a constitutional crisis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs)

Oh and there is this quote from Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense. (If this is not a political crisis what is. Wiki will have egg on its face).

Ukrainian President to Dissolve Parliament

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko will probably use his constitutional right and dissolve the parliament, which is blocked by the opposition, said Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense, RIA-Novosti reported.

Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense, indicated that the President may dismiss the parliament stating

“

Due to the growing threat to the national security, the crisis of political forces in the parliament… Ukrainian president retains the right granted by the Constitution and Supreme Rada’s regulations to decide on consulting with political forces about the prospects for continuation of Supreme Rada’s authority. This decision could be taken by the president if the parliament's work remains blocked in the nearest days and if it doesn’t set to performing the constitutional duties .^[1].

”

Kurtdaydo (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but what the hel does the Gas Crisis got to do with Ukraine unable to hold its regular parliamentary session and Resignation from "Our Ukraine" Party, you just can't mention evry event, put them toghetter and call it one big crises. (what do Ukraine unable to hold its regular parliamentary session and Resignation from "Our Ukraine" Party have in common anyway?) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtdaydo is a sockpuppet of UkraineToday. It looks like UT has now thrice told us to keep the page. Ostap 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve sourcing. —Nightstallion 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The fact that the some newspapers talk about "political crisis" doesn't mean there exists one. It is very common that the media use this kind of expressions. It seems to me that the article was written before a real crisis breaks out. Since the president is thinking to dissolve the parliament it is possible we see a real crisis soon, but I think now we may say that the situation is "unbalanced" but not a crisis. I am ready to change my vote if someone provides more data supporting the opposite. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note this AfD guideline on discussion: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Again, aside from the Russia-Ukraine gas crisis, there was no other crisis in Ukraine. It is true that the parliament was blocked by opposition groups, but that does not make a crisis. Every time there is a filibuster does not make it a crisis either. Lastly, see the following news item about the resumption of parliament's work on March 6th.--Riurik^(discuss) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Novosti a realiable source? Acording to Wikipedia it is state controled... I would not recomend using it! UNIAN [49] seems to be more indipendent, the (from Novosti) info seems to be correct.... this time.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as a rule, Novosti carries with it the state bias and should be avoided, but in this case the report was factually correct and suffices for our purposes.--Riurik^(discuss) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT#NEWS, as has been cited. This is a classic case of recentism. Every country has political flaps, every country has the scandal de jour, parliaments get dissolved, fresh elections happen, and ten years down the road, no one notices or remembers. Do we have articles on the 1999 Ukrainian political crisis, the 2000 Ukrainian political crisis, the 2001 Ukrainian political crisis, the August 2001 Ukrainian political crisis, etc, because there certainly was something that some newspaper somewhere called one? Ravenswing 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as political crises have historical and encyclopedic relevance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When they are actually crises, as opposed to the daily flapping of the media cycle. Ravenswing 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Kim Sam Soon (Phlippine TV Remake)

Although this show might eventually air in the Philippines, it's too soon to create an article for it, per WP:NOT (Wikipidia is not a crystalball).

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

-Danngarcia (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with above... not a crystal ball indeed. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fully sourced... why not, then? — TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fully sourced because its only a one-sentence article (for now). But I think its for deletion. --Efe (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword in the refs is "offered". If taping is underway then perhaps this can be valid. --Howard the Duck 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, and knowing how Filipino showbiz people like to "prepare" for shows that would not suffice. Starczamora (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not even sure if this one will be made. Better wait until later than create one sooner. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: My Name Is Kim Sam Soon (Phlippine TV Remake) and My Name is Kim Sam Soon (Philippine TV series) were redirected to Kim Sam Soon on March 5. Since the content of this third article isn't substantially different to the other two, I'm adding it to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this series is not just rumoured. its been discussed in many newspaper article and mentioned in velasquez's show. there is no doubt that the series will push through (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 faithless (^speak) 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheon (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google searches yield nothing notable about the American band, other than the wiki page. No national tours or notable label. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree. Delete. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather extensive discography, but nothing seems to assert the band's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Evidently too much uncertainty and crystal-bally for the time being. The injunction has been lifted now. I would observe that the 4-fold relisting here was ridiculous. If there is no consensus, the article survives, and it should not be repeatedly relisted until the decision becomes trivial for the closing admin - this AfD has festered for more than a month. In this case, I'm obviously considering all the presented arguments up to this, eventual closure time. -Splash - tk 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad Too

This episode has been speculated to be in the running order for season 7 for weeks, first being speculated to be airing in November, then December 27. It cites no reliable sources for an episode article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Will ^(talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Scrubs episodes until WP:CRYSTAL and WP:EPISODE are no longer an issue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that the episode even exists. Will ^(talk) 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold off on your comments, folks. As another administrator pointed out, there is a Halt to activities on decisions about individual episodes of TV series and characters on a TV series. It's not been well-publicized but it's still going on, so far as I know Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to make a general decision on what to do about AFD's on episodes while the injunction is still in place. Should they just be procedurally closed and then renominated if necessary after the arbitration case is finished, or should we just put a comment in the AFD that the injunction is in place and then keep relisting until the case is finished? Not sure where this should be discussed so raising it here. Davewild (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current injunction is messy and is widely opposed by nearly all of the parties in the RfAr. One look at it can tell you it's only supposed to apply to notability, and it's very unfortunate that articles such as this are caught up by extremely terrible wording. Will ^(talk) 15:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Davewild, I have asked that question, and many others have asked it, and the question seems to be intentionally not being answered. My action plan is to relist ad nauseum until advised differently by the ARBCOM. To close against consensus seems inherantly wrong, and to close per consensus could result is desysopping. To leave open without relisting will create an unmanageable backlog, so relisting is the only way that does not result in harm being done. To Mandsford, people do not have to hold off on their comments... ARBCOM did not say we can't talk, just can't take action. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Will I note you have proposed an amendment to the injunction on the workshop we shall see what ARBCOM think of it. Re: Jerry, seems as sensible a course as any, but suggest that a note be put on affected AFDs so that contributors who are not aware of the case are told why the AFD is being relisted, but that comments on keeping/deleting/merging/redirecting are encouraged so the AFDs can be quickly closed once ARBCOM finish the case. Considering the proposed decision has not even been started yet we could have this situation for a while and putting a notice on the AFD will prevent comments like this 'Speedy Keep due to an ArbCom injunction. Though normally I would vote to delete' which will make the closing admins job even harder. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(template moved to top)

How's that? JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of using this template as an interim solution. It's better than holding the argument in every AFD that gets opened, at the very least. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good solution too. In the case of this episode description, Delete. My understanding is that there's not an inherent notability in individual episodes, even of a popular TV series, and that notability has to be demonstrated in a real-world as well as an in-universe fashion. This may well become the first new episode of Scrubs after the writers' strike; there may be some notability if the strike kept a script from being filmed and presented. So far, the article is just a slight paraphrase of the tv.com summary, and it won't matter if this article gets "scrubbed". (I had to read this one twice-- Turns out its says that "J.D. is in charge of treating a BURN patient", not "a BUM patient" "burn" and "bum" look similar) Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly encourage that a note of the {{FICTWARN}} template be brought up at the RfAr page for input. And for the sake of clarity to place it at the top of the AfD page, (similar to {{not a ballot}})-- RoninBK _{T C} 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no season for the page to be removed. Looks decent enough. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.193.230 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks and still no reliable source? Delete per nom once the injunction is lifted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The arbcom injunction only applies to notability discussions. As such, it does not apply to this AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBC's post-strike announcement that episodes will air from April. Catchpole (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't magically make the episode exist, though. Will ^(talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted'Jerry' talk ¤ count/logs 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not verifiable right now, and even if it were there is no indication that it is particularly notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Users can recreate this stub if it is confirmed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdcp stripper

Complete WP:OR with "references" to home pages of companies purporting to strip HDCP (but still is OR). If it was properly sourced, it might be valid on the HDCP page, but user refuses to do so. The exact same text was added to four different pages and was reverted off all of them. The article isn't even titled correctly (should be HDCP). New User who only edits on this topic is attempting to end run around Wikipedia sourcing rules. KelleyCook (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - particularly drivelly-OR. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd say merge back into High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection‎ but I don't think there's anything of encyclopedic value, certainly not verifiable or sourced. --MCB (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything of value here - it looks like an effort to promote products. Ianbetteridge (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - There are about a thousand results on google when searching for HDCP strippers, and I suspect this number is likely to grow as the demand increases. I would prefer a merge at this point, unless the subject matter becomes big enough to deserve its own article. --Rebroad (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12, since in my understanding the mentioned injunction does not apply to successive copy-right violations nor do we merge in such a case. Tikiwont (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noggra

Not notable fictional character and is a copy of the article at the more appropriate Memory Alpha. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, provides virtually no out-of-universe information. Was likely created in reaction to the actor's recent death. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This would seem to fall under the currently active ArbCom case, so I have added the notice above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, forgot about that arbcom case. There an issue with me nominating this during it? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can still nominate articles for deletion. The article just can't be deleted or redirected while the case is open. A discussion can still take place. --Pixelface (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just didn't want to add to the issue. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only once the current injunction is lifted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Star Trek characters: N-S. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yeah, this article looks like a copy-paste from Memory Alpha[50] The article at Memory Alpha hasn't been edited since January 26, 2008, and this Wikipedia article was created February 17, 2008. Apart from the infobox, the only text in this article that does not exactly appear at Memory Alpha is "a fictional character in Star Trek." --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to injunction. ViperSnake151 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Trek characters: N-S; not enough here for an article on its own. For the record, my understanding of the ArbCom injunction was that it was supposed to stop the kind of revert warring that had been taking place, not to prevent the Wikipedia community from discussing these issues on appropriate forums. *** Crotalus *** 04:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The injunction isn't stopping discussion, it's just stopping action while they figure out what to do with things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of injunction. Gary King (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the notice at the top again. You do not have to !vote Keep "as per the injunction" It just means that the AfD isn't going to be closed until after the ArbCom case, and it will be perpetually relisted until the ArbCom case closes. -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge despite injunction. Unless expanded, it provides very little info at all, and should be merged to actor's article. Editor of the wiki 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Star Trek characters: N-S once the injucntion is lifted. No context in the article except for the intro sentence. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, but wait until after the injunction. Addhoc (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Noggra Note that Memory Alpha's licensing does not allow for commercial use -- Whpq (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. That aside, this is an exceedingly minor character with no real notability, even within his television programme. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Kivisto

A college hockey player--search of Yahoo or Google turns up no awards won at the college level, and no instances of being named an All-America. Therefore, fails WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The player doesn't seem notable enough to keep. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Seicer, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie McSnuzie

No google hits for supposed actor; likely fictional. Also non-notable. PROD was contested by original submitter. bd_ (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as blatant hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planners Lab

Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Fails WP:N. Original research with no sources that reads like a promotional brochure/ user guide. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:V and WP:RS. Shamelessly directs the reader to the download page for the software, so also touches upon WP:SPAM. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#GUIDE and so on and so forth. Seems to have been created by a single use account that created article and images to go with it. Also, this was already Speedly deleted once in a previous form, so it's also recreation of deleted material. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So called inclusionist. Druge (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck comment from blocked vandal — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Seicer ,non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Elizabeth Myers

No evidence of notability and no ghits except for this article Grahame (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as pretty evident hoax. Searches for the name and forms of it plus various keywords turn up nothing about a model with this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, taking into account the rather clear consensus of those who assessed the revised version and its sources. Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Junior School

Prod was contested on the grounds that the creator intends to improve the article. Problem is, when the concern is notability (as it was), the article could be a masterpiece and still be up for deletion. This article is about a primary school whose main claim to notability is that it was built on the site of a house owned by a famous explorer. Still, Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources; only source is official website, and a search for additional sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources, seems to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meets none of the notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you meant "proposed notability criteria". There are now, at any rate, multiple independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This non notable school lacks reliable sources. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons above. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of sources. Undeath (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly non-notable.--—TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively non-notable junior school. If it became significant in any way it could become notable. SMC (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plymouth # Education #Schools... Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article now has reliable independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources is plural but there is only one new source given.(westernpress) Undeath (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three different news stories. I used all three. Two more given for further reading. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school which is over 100 years old with an interesting history, and notable also for being the location of Sir Francis Drake's former home. The original school was huge by UK standards with 1548 pupils. A few online sources have already been added. There will be plentiful sources in the local Devon libraries. Dahliarose (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historic school backed up by independent references that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Yes, per nom. I agreed with everything he said except the recommendation to delete. So "What he said", but keep. Also per the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, and per the improvements that have been made to the article during this debate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently stands, ample reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is well know in Plymouth and information about it is important to the history of the local area. Aforalice (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school has accumulated plenty of press coverage during its 100 year history to show its notability. The sources presently cited are only a selection of the easily-found online (and therefore recent) ones. —SMALL JIM 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as there is no verifiable content to merge. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal (album)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only MySpace for a reference. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Switchfoot are a fairly well-known band, and as the project involves their lead vocalist and the album is released fairly soon (even if it hasn't been covered heavily), I dare say, if it deleted now, it'll warrant an article within 3 or 4 months. Esteffect (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If and when it warrants an article it can easily be re-created. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info exists on the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Real SeanJon. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable information to confirm the existance of this album (no, Myspace does not count). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into The Real SeanJon for now, its release is not confirmed, it does not appear to have had significant coverage and there is very little verifiable information available about it. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into The Real SeanJon until more references appear. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Real SeanJon - split back off if/when released --T-rex 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sourced content to merge and the target is just a collection of quotes, either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lochhead

Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted on Feb. 26, and was subsequently contested by Gordon Laird on DRV. The discussion closed with a result of overturn and list on AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see much in the way of third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Esteffect (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His published work appears to have been commented upon sufficiently, and has made enough of an impact for his publications, and thus himself as an author to be notable. There's probably a lack of referencing but the individual himself seems notable. Esteffect (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep though shear it down. This guy appears to have been an innovator and has published enough and had enough published about him to meet WP:N. Sethie (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but he seems to have published enough to meet the requirements, and symposia dedicated to his work would seem to support third-party notability. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't figure out what the previous editors are referring to regarding his publication record, his innovations, or articles having been written about him. The publications listed on the page seem to be in minor journals or conference proceedings; I'm not sure which if any are peer-reviewed. The only referenced statement about him was from his promotion to emeritus, which happens to most professors when they retire. Have any articles or books been written about his work? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I think. The article establishes, from sources, that the subject has some claim to having made a singular or distinctive contribution. Certainly worth giving the originator more time to work it up, including adding more independent sources and converting the Wikipedia source to the original refs used for that statement in the source article. I believe this has potential, though, taking at face value the statement that "His speech in 1984 Theology in a Digital World is credited with opening a unique branch of thought and study". Obviously we need references to substantiate the importance of this field; if it was only him and half a dozen others then it's not a claim to notability, and I don't actually know of this field myself, but I'm happy to believe it might have been quite significant in its day. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I guess my worry is that the statement you refer to, and others that would establish notability, are not cited; the footnote to that sentence just tells us where to find the speech. That is, the article asserts notability, but that is only enough for getting it past CSD: to survive, it actually needs to establish that notability. Given, the article has only been around since 22 February 2008, but some sort of reliable source has to be found at some point. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think my views on this are fairly well-known: keep and improve works once. If it's not improved in six months, feel free to AfD again. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor at major theological school,about a dozen important books, influence on church practices as distinctive contribution. DGG (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gordon Laird has worked immensely hard to establish the notability (Lochhead is far more notable than a lot of other articles on WP), and has produced sources to back up claims. The editors at AfD voted for an overturn, including myself, so I vote to keep it. PeterSymonds | talk 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pango (Drink)

Non-notable per WP:N ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There should be a speedy category for drinks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article pretty much states it's only sold in one place. It could probably be speedied for not asserting notability, actually. Esteffect (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no speedy category for drinks otherwise I would have nominated it for speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the article to indicate the drink's notability. Wikipedia is not a publicity engine. Notary137 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - totally non-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, non-notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, a drink sold in one single solitary student bar. No indication of any notability whatsoever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non admin close) Undeath (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolt (Norwegian band)

PROD was removed and I am listing this article as a result. I see no sources backing up claims of notability. As such, it fails WP:BAND and is a very WP:NN subject. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails wp:band. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Mr Senseless (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Article complies to the following of Wikipedia:MUSIC / WP:BAND:

1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works

4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source (see below), and still is one of the very few metal bands besides Satyricon, Dimmu Borgir and Pagan's Mind being frequently mentioned in the mainstream Norwegian press in addtion to the music press. And they have had several international tours/gigs (alone and with several other signifficant bands: [51])

5: Has released two or more albums on a major label (Both records released on Massacre Records and FaceFront Records)

Massacre Records is signifficant label: Massacre Recors, [[52]], see also: Massacre Records Thunderbolt web page, FaceFront Thunderbolt web page

Independent press review of record(s): VG (Norways largest newspaper), [http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2006/11/14/482847.html Dagbladet (Norways second largest newspaper) - Love & Destruction, Dagbladet - Demons and Diamonds

Records for sale at Amazon: Love & Destruction, Demons and Diamonds

This has been debated before, stating that article was and is notable. See Talk:Thunderbolt_(Norwegian_band) and previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunderbolt (band), resulting in No Consensus for deletion.

~~Nonscarian (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Apart from your username and new account status being utterly suspicious I shall reply to your points:

1) Prove it. Where are they?

4) That source isn't considered WP:RS.

5) I'm not so sure those labels are notable. Prove to me that they are. How long have both the labels existed for starters?

Those sources are all in Norwegian. This is the English Wikipedia. How can I check to see if they're factually accurate?

Having a listing on Amazon doesn't automatically infer notability.

It may have been debated before but consensus can change. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:V: English sources are prefered but not required if only non-English sources are available. —Quasirandom (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read for the sixth time in my wiki-career :-) - I can't tell if they've actually released 2 albums on a notable label... mainly because I can't read Norwegian, buddy. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can't, but others who read Norwegian can. That satisfies the policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~per Nonscarian~~; if their albums are indeed on Massacre then they're probably notable by that criterion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, are reasonably well-known in Norway, have performed internationally, and have released albums on significant labels. And the only available references being in Norwegian doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. Esteffect (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and reply, mainly to Pat aka User:Scarian and User:Nonscarian:

1 - Works published under FaceFront Records and Massacre Records should surely be valid. There is no debate regarding the notability of e.g. the Fates Warning, King Diamond or Pagan's Mind articles, now is there? (I.e. agree with User:TenPoundHammer). E.g. [53] only lists signifficant Norwegian releases.

4 - Even disregarded the band webpage source (per WP:RS) and the fact that User:Scarian does not read Norwegian, lots of users here do. I can confirm the other sources are signifficant. Should we scrap French or Cantoneese sources just because I cannot understand them? In my opinion articles are valid in english (as well as norwegian) even if most sources are not in english.

Even if consensus may have changed, this band is well within limits of noticability aka WP:BAND. However, should that change furthermore, as in 'to the contrary', I guess most band in english Wikipedia (and most other languages) will have to be scrapped as well.

~~Noban (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment above user is new, only edits to the Thunderbolt article. I agree with their argument but if I'm correct at suspecting it's a sock, I don't think they're doing the keep argument much good. Esteffect (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noban (talk · contribs) has been tagged as a likely sock. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck and blocked. Confirmed sock. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Complies to WP:BAND by having done national and internation shows, even with other famous which has solid entries here like british Paul Di'Anno formerly of Iron maiden, danish King Diamond and swedish Sabaton, as well as two records on major labels. Actually, most likely three by 2008. They have also done a few big festivals, mainly national ones though.

85.164.157.152 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point #5 of WP:MUSIC - two albums released on Massacre Records. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no English sources currently in the article to support that claim, buddy. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. I've added a link to allmusic.com, which was mentioned at the article's previous nomination for deletion back in October 2005. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a non-notable subject and it fails WP:MUSIC. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject per multiple sections of WP:MUSIC and meets criteria of WP:V. Major significance english sources: Metal Archives ([54] and sub-pages), Metal Observer ([55], [56].) Minor significance english sources: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. (Only online sources, but is difficult to link to printed press...) Will add relevant english sources to main article. Username-2008-02-19 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; emphasis on English sources completely inappropriate here. Band seems to pass WP:MUSIC.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Norwegian? :-O Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it matters is that one person can. English language sources are preferable, but not required. matt91486 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The releases on Massacre Records are definitely proven by the Massacre Records website, which, though the text is in Norwegian, clearly shows on the right sidebar that there were two releases with the company. matt91486 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has released albums on a notable record label. Incidentally, the Massacre Records site linked from the article is in German, rather than Norwegian, and I can read it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it passes WP:MUSIC then it passes WP:MUSIC. Demands that the sources be "in English" are outside policy, and would lead to a pro-anglophone systematic bias of titanic proportions if they were accepted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete: author has requested deletion; I've speedied it; nothing further to do. Non-admin closure —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Marie (actress)

May not meet WP:BIO. Could not find any reliable sources indicating notability when searching on Google for "nancy marie" actress or "nancy marie" actor. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Might even be a semi-hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep nancy ^(talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jaaska

Non notable comic book artist, speedy deleted twice for lack of an assertion of notability, bringing to AfD at the request of the author. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Gets a fair amount of ghits, but there isn't substantiatl coverage and/or reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep significant body of work [62] though lack of really good sources; still, many ghits including sources such as [63]. JJL (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a notable artist[64]. He was the cover artist for 19 issues of Sable and did the pencils for most of them. He did the cover and pencils for Uncanny X-Men #263. He did pencils for Wolverine #30, Uncanny X-Men #265, Turok #23, Swamp Thing #104 and #110, covers for 10 issues of The New Titans, pencils for Incredible Hulk #378 (with cover) and #380, etc. --Pixelface (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is trivial directory entry stuff, a list rather than an article. But without an article on Jaaska and his work, with commentary and analysis and some indication of significance or importance, this is WP:NOT material. Google hits, or their absence, prove absolutely nothing. Either transwiki to Comixpedia, if they'd take it, then delete, or just plain old delete. None of the links above or in the article have anything at all encyclopedic to say about Jaaska. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a notable artist, based on his body of work. As noted by Mr. McLellan, the article is still very much a stub, and could use more in the way of commentary or analysis. But that makes it a stub that needs improvement, not a non-notable subject that should be deleted. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based "on his body of work" but on coverage in third-party sources. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place, but I certainly don't see any such coverage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, the sources where such an artist would be discussed—such as the Comic Buyer's Guide—are not available online (and I do not have a collection), but this artist's work was used to create a DVD comic book with where camera movement over the images is timed to fit actors reading the dialog. (now noted in the article.) Also I though I had read a wikipedia guideline (or maybe a suggestion) that for published authors, and artists, a body of work that is not self-published was at some point its own basis for notability. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither it is, but while I'm happy that it's that way, it is a relevant guideline. The article is still a bibliography. While that would be a necessary part of an article, on its own it's not enough for an encyclopedia rather than a directory. Still no word from the critics, no awards, nothing on the influences and the influenced, nothing really to say why this person is significant or important. What we have would be much more at home here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to a Marvel database that many do not even know exists is not a good solution. This artist did most of his work for other companies, notably DC, and work for other publishers than the big two (Jon Sable, Terminator) if this page does not exist here than anyone looking for more information of the creators of those projects will not find it. Wikia's are great for extensive detail that would not be appropriate here (Memory Alpha for example), but they have limited utility for the average user who does not know they exist, and cannot be directed to them without at least some result/entry here. If you really do not believe that he warrants a separate page here, then he should be a section in a page on comic artists with a redirect. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Let's look at the facts. This article was nominated for deletion three hours after it was created. Do people need pointing at WP:BITE or even our editing policy? Let's practise what we preach here and allow the collaborative nature of Wikipedia to work its charms. I have a stack of Comics Journals sitting here, but it's going to take me longer than the time this afd has left to run to find the articles that exist and build a better article than we currently have. The sources likely exist. That's all we need to know. If they haven't been found in six months or so, we can revisit it. There's no hurry here. I'd also advise the nominator that we do not speedy articles for lack of assertion of notability, and that the correct speedy clause is An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Being a published artist is of no small significance, but I guess that's all subjective. Stubs used to be allowed to exist on Wikipedia, I don;t recall the memo that that had changed. Someone want to post it to me? Hiding T 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. On the off chance that someone will search using this, the title will redirect to the artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out Da Darkness Of Da Kut

Non-notable something by barely notable performer. This something-or-another is so non-notable that no one is even sure if it's an album or a single. Article references no sources at all. Kww (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Playa Fly. According to WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." And the more so when the artist himself is of dubious notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Middle School

Typical ~~high~~ middle school with no assertion of notability. Appears to have mostly been a backdrop for a large number of speedied articles relating to a choir from that school. — Coren ^(talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete middle schools are generally nn and this appears to be no exception. JJL (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to town or school district article, if one exists, otherwise delete. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Plano Independent School District. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the first thing I tried. That got reverted. But I am still supporting that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search found no out-of-town interest except for one item: an 8th grader there tied for 11th place at the 2005 National Spelling Bee. Everything else is routine. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Plano Independent School District#Specific schools per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, middle schools are non-notable and should be actively discouraged. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a garden-variety middle school. No wider notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Brewcrew and Terriers. I don't think we should (or even could) actively discourage articles about middle schools or elementary schools, since they're created in good faith. However, if there's nothing to show notability in addition to having educated thousands of persons, such articles shouldn't stay on the board. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. But school articles aren't necessarily created in good faith any more than articles about any other kind of organisation; I've seen ones clearly made by parents hoping to talk up their kid's school (or maybe just hoping to talk up the public school down the block in hopes of fooling prospective buyers to push up real estate prices in the neighbourhood or something). cab (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and actively discourage creation per Chris. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Plano Independent School District#Specific schools per WP:SCHOOL. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasium

Video game with no independent verification and no assertion of notability. — Coren ^(talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at this point; the only sources are a web site and two forum posts. JJL (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to crystal-ballery, lack of verifiability, and that its NN. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Creative Union" is a group of users on a web forum, not a game production company. Even if this game existed - which it doesn't yet - its notability would be minimal. And, given that they're still writing the story right now, it's probably going to be a long time until the game is released (assuming it's ever released, which isn't guaranteed). Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no actual proof that this is anything other than something made up in school one day. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, lol, an RPG maker game. User:Krator (t c) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, etc, as others have commented above. From the article history, I suspect that BiGfrend (talk · contribs) is here to spam us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP as a bad faith nomination. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mulroney

AfDs for this article:

little know politician who is not very relavent to Canadian politics Mountainhighmoon (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination, nom has absolutely no other edits besides those related to the creation of this AfD, and article already went through one AfD with a closure of Speedy Keep. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail gallery post

Complete original research and perpetual spam magnet Will ^(talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; it's not complete original research, as there is one link there, and perpetual spam magnet is not a reason to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The given reference (a tutorial spanning multiple articles) supports the claims made in the article. The term "TGP" is not much used in mainstream media, but it is extremely common in online pornography venues; a search for it on the adult industry site http://www.avn.com yields 233 articles. The charge of "spam magnet" is not a valid argument for deletion; we have other tools to deal with that problem. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep like AxalBoldt, this is commonly known term and spam magnet is not reason for delete. --Zache (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Because this term has importance in terms of Internet websites and marketing behavior / tactics. 69.177.106.166 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "OU lost one more member". Kommersant. 2008-04-04.

[1] "OU lost one more member". Kommersant. 2008-04-04.

[1]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasium}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Mulroney (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumbnail gallery post}}