Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 2

< November 1	November 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.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, classic case of WP:NFT. Also, no content left if you were to delete anything lacking reliable sources (i.e., all of it). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game plays[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Zsero (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (nominator): Homemade sport, not in the least notable. Zsero (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great idea. Keep the article. Bigkid72 (talk)
Sorry, you have to give a reason why it is notable. -- Zsero (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to post info on the game you made up at school today. -- role^player 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:NEO, WP:NFT. The article was tagged for G1 and should be deleted accordingly. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete its G1 nonsense crap, get rid of it IMMEDIATELY JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is not G1, nor does it fit any of the other CSD. There's nothing much wrong with it except that it's not at all notable, and that's not a CSD. So it has to go through AFD. -- Zsero (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have faith that common sense (that isn't all that common around these parts) will prevail. JBsupreme (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total trash, editor admits to trying to use Wikipedia to propagate it. He'll skulk away when we see we don't stand for that kind of nonsense and it'll be the end of it. JuJube (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bite the n00bs. The editor seems to be a 9th-grader. If we're kind to him, he may turn out to be a valuable Wikipedian. This article must go, but let's not be nasty about it, and let's definitely encourage him to find more appropriate topics to write about. -- Zsero (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I originally tagged this as 'nonsense' when checking new pages yesterday. I stand by this decision and believe it should be speedily deleted.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to call it nonsense as defined in WP:CSD#G1 would be to tell a blatant lie. -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 (advertising) if nothing else-- see the author's comment on the article's Talk page: "And I want it to spread. It'll become a cultural phenomenon. And Wikipedia could be the reason. Just keep it. Let the knowledge of "plays" spread." In short, it's not notable, and it's author wants to use Wikipedia to make it notable-- no no no! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. It's not advertising an "entity", and it would not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". If the sport it describes were notable, the article as it stands would be a good start. So no WP:CSD#G11. There's nothing wrong with using WP to advertise something, so long as the article on its own merits being in an encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but article creator. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up --T-rex 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every game is made up. The problem with this one is that it hasn't yet spread beyond one playground. If it ever does catch on, it will be a valid subject for WP. -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. Now I'm embarrassed. Zsero, however, gave me a good idea. I'll get the Promoter to write about it. Then it'll be notable. Bigkid72 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There were two delete votes and no well-formed keep votes. There was some 'keep' sentiment expressed informally, mostly by newcomers to Wikipedia, but it did not appear to be based on Wikipedia policy. Those arguing for keep did not offer arguments phrased in terms of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last November[edit]

Band is not notable. No specific references verify what is written. The only independent reference provided, New Music Weekly, does not link to anything that specifically mentions the band — it just links to the home page of the site, and a search of the site turns up nothing about the group. The other citations are to AllMusic which merely proves the band exists, the band's MySpace (see this page), and the label's web site page about the band. None of those can be considered reliable, independent sources because they are controlled by the band itself, its label, or others with a vested interest in the band. This band is not signed by a major label or well-known indie. It has not placed a song on a major chart. It does not inherit notability from its producers (as the original author claims) or anyone outside the band itself. Therefore, it fails Wikipedia's notability policies for bands and the article should be deleted, without prejudice toward re-creation if the band "hits it big" later on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Music Weekly link does mention the band. It is a voting page. Therefore you have to click on the drop down menu which lists the nominees for "new top 40 group of the year" Last November is listed there along with Seether and other notable acts.

Specify what a big indie label is. Southern Tracks Records has had very notable artists in the past. Southern Tracks Records also owns Bill Lowery Music Publishing Group which has thousands of songs in its catalogue including Last Novembers songs. Bill Lowery was an extremely important figure in Georgia's music history and was the first non-performer inducted into the georgia music hall of fame. Therefore, Southern Tracks Records is a notable independent label.

The New Music Weekly Charts are notable and respected charts. Last November's new single impacted only a few weeks ago and is at number 63 on the top 100.

Robert pillgraham (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)— Robert pillgraham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question: Are you related to Luke Pilgrim? How did you hear of this band, and what is your relationship to it? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The New Music Weekly charts are not notable. The fact that it apparently is an Internet voting system makes it very suspect. I see no one else citing this chart. The label apparently does not merit a Wikipedia article itself. I'm beginning to suspect the original author has some sort of connection to the band, which would run afoul of WP:COI. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no proof that the New Music Weekly charts are official like Billboard. Southern Tracks does indeed have other notable artists, but notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point about the Southern Tracks is that in WP:MUSIC one of the standards is this: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." So, I think what he's arguing is that their two albums have been released on one of the "more important indie labels." Metros (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this article which, by itself, doesn't give it notability, however, there is a line in there that says their song "Sniper" was featured on MTV. I haven't been able to see anything in a quick Google search to expand upon that, but maybe someone can explore that? (I'm not able to thoroughly investigate right now). Metros (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only recently joined Wikipedia. Like many, however, I use it frequently for information. One of my friends and I who happen to be big fans of Last November realized they were one of the few newer Indy bands we're into (and more popular, might I add), that didn't have a Wikipedia entry. Therefore, we decided to add a section, and are slowly contributing to it as we get some free time. I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting the thread, because the band is played on the radio and tours, and is *officially* up for nomination as a top 40 band with NMW, a HUGE group in the industry. Their site tracks spins, rankings, etc. Again, they are far more prominent than many of the bands I listen to that I've found entries for, even some with full albums with their own entry. This is a pretty frustrating first experience adding onto Wikipedia, I must add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. You must realize that not all subjects are notable enough to merit articles. We have specific guidelines (click here) regarding bands and musicians. Last November does not meet these requirements. NMW is not huge in the industry by any means. Just being played by a handful of radio stations is not enough. A smattering of tour dates is not enough. Last November make become famous someday, but not now. Until then, no article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's been over 24 hours, with nary a properly-formed opinion to keep. WP:SNOW, anyone? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I only see one !vote to delete it so far, so I don't think a snow closing would be proper here at all. Either way (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's too early yet (and I'm the nom). Let this go for a while. Right now we're at the stage of having a couple of fans of the band who don't yet grasp the notion that not every band deserves a Wikipedia article, and haven't had much more than that. Let the AfD run its course. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand the big issue. The band has 2 albums through a legitimate label, plays major shows, is up for nomination as a top40 new group...

and isn't the point of Wikipedia to provide a bank of truthful knowledge to computer users? There's no promotion or advertisement going on here. I just don't see where a policy is being broken. To be frank, I believe some of these self-proclaimed Wikipedia police have let their "position" go to their heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- "Legitimate label" doesn't necessarily mean "notable label." Additionally, the definition of a "Major show" is debatable in this case. And apparently anyone can be nominated for this new-group thing, so that's no help. We don't doubt that this article is truthful; but the band just isn't notable enough (yet). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did find this http://www.pittradio.net/music_info/artist_info.asp?id=1008 from Pittradio.net saying "Last November is a band that quickly exceeds expectations. Last November’s 2nd album is being produced by Steven Haigler (Brand New, Fuel, Pixies, Oleander)". It's not much. But I'd really really like to support this new user who wants to have an article. Will they update the article with some better references establishing notability? Can they? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clear and blatant violation of WP:NOT. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get to islip airport[edit]

Not encyclopaedic content per WP:NOT, maybe more useful on WikiHow? (does that exist?) \ / (⁂) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed, almost anyone can use Google Maps or Yahoo! Maps to find the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Uh, Wikipedia is not a GPS device. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not speedy delete per WP:NOT and reads like an advertisement. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think how-tos are speedyable however it's not worth transwikiing anywhere now that google maps exists. -- role^player 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not a how-to. MuZemike (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bold soft redirect to Commons:United States presidential election maps in Wikimedia Commons by yours truly. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election maps[edit]

This page is an image gallery, and thus fails item #4 of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The content has already been transwikied to Commons:United States presidential election maps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect per nom Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Income redistribution[edit]

I fee that this article is rather overwhelmingly in favour of the US Republican party. It's not very well sourced, and 'Income Redistribution' has never been a political policy. I think the word the writer was looking for was socialism, or a social care system at any rate. Full of phrases like "one could argue that" and other unsourced arguments one way or another, this article needs to be at best stubbified. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the below comments, I'd like to withdraw my nomination, but point out that the article is pretty heavily biased and unsourced. If someone has an interest in it, could they have a look, otherwise I'll be removing the unsourced statements in course. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It may be biased, but that does not mean it's not an incredibly important topic. Just needs some cleanup. P.S.: putting {{fact}} after every sentence doesn't help! Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I didn't put the fact tags there ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Redistribution of wealth. Title and content seem like a spinout from that article. MuZemike (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno - I kinda disagree with that. Income redistribution is transferring income from high earners to low earners (such as taxing the rich more than the poor but spending more on the poor than the rich) but Wealth redistribution is a more long-term process aimed at transferring wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article is biased, remove the bias. If it's not sourced, find sources. If it makes erroneous statements, remove those statements. But income redistribution is a very notable concept everywhere (not just the US). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does the nominator really believe that income redistribution has never been a political policy? I think you'll find that in one form or another it has been a political policy in most of the world for the last century or two. Obviously a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable concept. Personal political leanings are not a reason to delete --T-rex 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote conservative: my personal political leanings are not in question here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reason to delete --T-rex 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and clean it up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've started cleanup, by removing unsourced opinions, and some intrinsically biased see alsos and categories. . The article as nominated was a drastic violation of NPOV, but that can be fixed--the only problem will be to avoid biasing it too much the other way. Those working on it further might want t try consulting the French and German articles for alternate treatments. DGG (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Septimus Pretorius[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Bride of Frankenstein. There is real world information in the article, but it is already included within the main article under a wider scope (Bride of Frankenstein#Homosexual interpretations). The rest of the information is just redundant plot and mentions of very minor appearances in other works that I really don't see providing any sort of relevant information. TTN (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator seems to have something of a grudge against this article. It seems rather nonsensical for him to claim that there is no independent notability beyond the film when he himself added information about how the character has made appearances in other media outside the film. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were major works meant to further expand on the character and provided information that is relevant to the real world, that would be asserting notability beyond the film. Instead, the character is borrowed along with a ton of others in one novel, which is really too trivial to mention, and he is used in Frankenstein's Aunt Returns, which possibly doesn't even relate to the film character at all outside of the name (it's trivial either way). If they really need to be mentioned anywhere, there is plenty of space in the main article. TTN (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the context of the film as a whole, they are trivial. Within the context of the character, they are not, any more than alternate versions of many characters that are noted within their character articles are trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple versions of characters are only noted if they're major popular icons, such as Frankenstein or the monster. Even in that case, they do not mention every single case that they are used, usually omitting completely trivial ones. In this case, you have Judgment of Tears, a crossover unofficially borrows many characters from many different pieces of media. Things like that and more recent types like the show Robot Chicken are not mentioned in the articles that they borrow from, instead just remaining self contained. I'd like to note that only a couple other characters link to the novel. Then you have Frankenstein's Aunt Returns, which is the second of a series that borrows from the pieces of Frankenstein media. That is also something that would not be mentioned within specific character articles. TTN (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me where what you've said above is based in policy or guideline? Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to just cop out with that argument? Policies and guidelines do not go so specific that I can just link to a part of a one and leave it at that. The article is currently redundant to the main article, so it does not establish notability per WP:N. You're claiming that having two minor mentions satisfies it, so you should be the one explaining anyway. TTN (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not copping out on anything. You're the one making a declaration about what does and doesn't get included in articles, yet I've seen plenty of articles that mention Robot Chicken and other minor mentions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is nothing specific that you're going to find in policies or guidelines. The closest thing would be to cite WP:UNDUE and the common practice of removing trivial things like Robot Chicken mentions (they're generally added back by anons at a faster rate, though). TTN (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large number of book sources [1], most of which look non-trivial. Plus the article isn't horribly sourced as it stands. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The works discussing a character do not have to be major works--that requirement is a pure invention, having no place in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. And I think the ed. who proposed that in this discussion admitted as much. They just have to provide non-trivial coverage. This is usually defined as meaning something ore than a mere listing. Many It means something more than saying only "among the other characters in this story are .... " It seems clear there are plenty of ones that do. Fiction is part of the real world--cinema and video productions are substantial things. The requirement for out of universe means only that a one cant talk about the characters if the fictional world were real--some extremely naive articles actually do just that, and it isn't acceptable. But that's all it means. I see the trend: first claim no sources. when proven wrong, claim no non trivial sources. when proven wrong, claim no significant source, then no major sources, then, I suppose, no full length monographs devoted to the subject. An absurd claim, which would give us a very small encyclopedia indeed. DGG (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (updated, see below) Covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to expand my comment here. I don't have a problem with merging this or redirecting it, given that the content is included in a parent article. My point was that the in-universe information was covered by sources independent from the film-makers. I read WP:PLOT narrowly to man that we shouldn't focus editor attention on plot details that aren't covered in reliable, independent sources. I don't read it to mean that all fictional articles must have some real world impact, though this is almost always what prompts significant coverage of the material. In other words, Rosencratz and Guildenstern get covered in independent sources pretty heavily, but that coverage is critical interpetation of the characters (in the main)--this does not mean that "plot" material sourced to those sources can't be included in the article. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After seeing Bride of Frankenstein with a friend the other day and running across this, I'm wondering if this article is really needed beyond a redirect or if the salvageable info may be better off combined into the film's article under development, reception and legacy. The current article for the character nominated here is pretty much mostly the plot for the film, and when you remove that, well...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- wasn't this guy told to stop deleting for a while? He really should have been banned again by now.JJJ999 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, no. And please be WP:CIVIL and discuss the article and not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets usual notability standards; no obvious reason to take exception to them here. Wily D 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been established. Matthew (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it looks like the sources listed are independent of the subject, so I have to side with the majority here. It's also starting to WP:SNOW in early November. MuZemike (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Greenwich, New South Wales#Education. Merging of any appropriate content into the target article is up to the consensus of editors. Since the history of the source article has been preserved under the redirect, the original content is still available to any editor who wants to undertake the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Public School[edit]

fails WP:ORG, no real coverage in secondary sources as indicated in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Greenwich, New South Wales#Education per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greenwich, New South Wales#Education, where it can be discussed in context and await significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an independent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, Merge to Greenwich, New South Wales, as is the normal procedure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look Who's Talking (BoA Album)[edit]

There are penalty of reasons as to why this page should be deleted. Two of them being only two tracks are known and there are no references. The main reason it should be deleted is because it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Moon (Sunrise) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-band}}. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not enough for a separate article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - future album without a tracklisting nor a release date --T-rex 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no source and no confirmations about it.206.40.103.168 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE Album will be relased in 2009. Artist single is officially released. Ishmael Rufus (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Within the next week or so, an album cover and full tracklist will be revealed. Why delete it now, if it will just be made again so soon? Keep it a little bit longer.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of previously deleted material. ... discospinster _talk 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Smasher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated, new article proded and contested. Rationale hasn't changed: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself" can be found. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 None of the problems from the last afd have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Alabama-Mississippi State Rivalry and Delete The 90 Mile Drive (which by the close of this AfD, had turned into a redirect). The vote of the participants, small in number though they may be, is for Keep of the underlying article. I don't find the sources very impressive, and I share the view that we don't need a separate article on every rivalry of an SEC team with Alabama. May I suggest to the editors that they consider redirecting Alabama-Mississippi State Rivalry to Mississippi State University#Athletics, and adding any significant material to the target of the redirect. To tidy up the set of entries on this subject, I've deleted The 90 Mile Drive, though I don't object to its re-creation if anyone can find reliable sources for use of that term for an athletic rivalry. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 90 Mile Drive[edit]

This page should be deleted because there is no rivalry between Mississippi State and Alabama in football (ie lack of notability). While it is a big game, every SEC football team does not have a rivalry with every other team in their division. This game is no more important than the Alabama-Arkansas or Alabama-Ole Miss game. Furthermore, there is little to no information on the page that can't be added to another section of either the Alabama or Mississippi State football pages. CH52584 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a rivalry? Apparently the two teams have played each other for 90 games. While I think that maybe perhaps the name of the article itself needs investigating, and definitely the content of the article needs editing, the subject itself is notable and worthy of an entry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several changes to the original article, moving it from "The 90 Mile Drive" to simply the Alabama-Mississippi State Rivalry, and refocused the subject of the article to a general athletic rivalry instead of a football rivalry. I will admit that the Alabama-Mississippi State basketball game is (or has been recently) a very important game in SEC basketball. Given that, and that Mississippi State views the Alabama football game as one of the biggest of the season (what SEC team doesn't?), and their proximity to each other, I think an article concerning an athletic rivalry is not unwarranted. However, my main complaint against the article was 1.) the name, which I have changed, and 2.) the focus on the football aspect, which is neither heated nor competitive. I have addressed my concerns, and would be willing to let the article stand as it currently is.CH52584 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game between the two teams is indeed called the "90 Mile Drive" per numerous sources. It's also being going on for 100+ years. I don't think it matters that Alabama has dominated the rivalry. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm from Alabama and have never heard the term "The 90 Mile Drive." I googled the term and the only hit I got that referred to the Alabama-Mississippi State game was a link to this article. If you have numerous sources, please provide them. The issue here is that this game is an afterthought in the minds of most Alabama fans. Number of meetings is not a factor: rivalries are made by the fans, and this game is nothing more than another SEC game to one fanbase. CH52584 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4]. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While 2 of these 3 do refer to the game as "The 90 Mile Drive," I still argue that the term is not commonly recognized as the "title" of the game. SEC and College football fans know what you're talking about when you mention the Iron Bowl, Third Saturday in October, The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, etc. But you'll also note that the "Tiger Bowl" does not have its own page, it's listed as the Auburn-LSU game. Same for the "Saban Bowl" and the "Nutt Bowl." These are, at best, nick-names that have yet to enter common knowledge, and should not be referred to as such. CH52584 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point yes, that is a point... but one that should be handled on the name or title of the article, which technically is an "editing" issue. Here, we are discussing "should the article exist at all" rather than "what should the title of the article be" ... but GREAT POINT just the same!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant target articles. As a rule of thumb, I think it's a bad idea to do O(N^2) articles, where N is the number of schools in a league, as any sufficiently established league will have rivalries spanning decades. RayAYang (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could create several dozen articles for every possible matchup in the SEC, but I think it would be a waste of time. Alabama is a traditional power in D-1A college football and has a winning record against every other SEC team. It's expected that most teams will consider a matchup against Alabama as a big game. But I don't think that qualifies as a rivalry, regardless of how close the school is to Alabama, or how many times they've played before. CH52584 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one editor's waste of time is another editor's enthusiastic entry. Further, the possibilities of other articles existing because this article exist is certainly worth discussing but certainly not a reason to delete this article. The decision to keep or delete should stand on the article itself, not on the existence or potential existince of other stuff.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! This is now the 2nd AfD, and there are still no sources in the article. It is not acceptable to keep it around indefinitely in its unsourced state as a separate article. If sources can be found, undo the redirect and make it into a free-standing article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Items[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject is not covered by independent, reliable sources in significant detail. Mentions in books and news items are limited to trivial accounts, works of fiction or licensed works. The article itself is comprised of editor interpretation and synthesis, plot summary and to a lesser extent game guide material. It has been tagged as lacking any references since 2007. The previous AfD was closed in July as no consensus with the (correct) observation that no one knew what to do with the page. Mergers, redirects, deletion and keeping the page were all proposed. Following that outcome, I proposed and widely advertised a merger of the content into parent articles (As can be seen on the talk page). This resulted in little action or interest from project members. So if a merger is proposed again at this AfD, please be aware that it is unlikely to happen without some external input and that the likely outcome of a merge close would be to leave the article in its current state. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the reason why the merge did not happen is because of the difficulty in interweaving information about these MacGuffins (yes, that's what they are) into the prose of the character articles and the YGO main articles. My previous suggestion of merging the different Items to the relevant characters was replied with by the fact that these items change hands frequently. That being said, I honestly think Wikipedia is better off without the information. Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia covers it just fine. JuJube (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect there are some RS out there with slightly better than in-passing references. [5], [6]. Don't know where to... Hobit (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside a discussion of the specific sources, I think we need a proper merge target before we can responsibly close this as "merge". That was precisely the problem we had last time. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a good merge target, I'd argue to keep. Don't know the area well enough to suggest one. But in looking stuff up for this, it seems notable in exactly one version of the game. Why not merge there? (Forbidden Memories?)Hobit (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll contest your claim that your first source is more than a trivial mention. I can't decipher the second source, so it may be significant coverage, but the first source doesn't seem like anything more than a namecheck. As far as merging to Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories, I would prefer it be merged higher in the hierarchy rather than lower. Honestly the three possible targets I see are Yu-Gi-Oh!, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), or Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series). But no one at the project seemed to know which was a proper target. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Millennium Items" are MacGuffins with "vaguely established powers" (as the abridged series that doesn't exist according to Wikipedia puts it ^_^) that everyone wants. Describing it in its own article would consist of just plot summaries and I think the current YGO articles (series and characters) gives it all the emphasis it merits. It should be deleted. JuJube (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete the redirect (move history elsewhere) since this is likely to be confused with items related to millennarianism (doomsday items) Merge to whatever Yugioh article is most appropriate. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a full article on a plot point. clearly not notable --T-rex 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The detail is excessive, and does represent fan material. If there is a god target, a summary should be merged. If not, the material in the present article should be summarized appropriately. AfD is not the place for editing articles. I point out that merge and then delete the redirect is a/inappropriate unless there is a question of copyvio or libel, since it otherwise would be a violation of GFDL. There is a difference between how to handle truly objectionable content and merely non-notable. There is no need to remove deleted material from visibility in page histories, and no policy calling for it. It is such suggestions that can lead people to distrust proposals for redirects. DGG (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the recommendation? If the article is to be kept, where are the sources or potential sources? If it is to be merged, what is the target(s)? I don't want this discussion to end up with the same result as the last one: no consensus between multiple mutually exclusive alternatives. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really, just source it and keep it as some sort of character list-type thing. What we have here is a list of major recurring elements in the series that ideally should be explained in their own section and have nowhere else to go, which is in essence what a list of fictional characters is. Also, I'm pretty sure there is some level of "real-world notablity" to these in the form of merchandise. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what reliable, independent sources are we to use in sourcing this article? Protonk (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manga pages, episodes, fanbooks, and etc. There's absolutely no need for "independent" sources here, they won't actually improve or validate the article's content or increase/decrease its overarching importance to other ones. Think outside the box. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, WP:N requires the use of independent sources. The question I'm left asking is, if no reliable, independent source has determined that significant coverage of these items is important, why is wikipedia first? Protonk (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go argue at WP:N that major elements of a series other than characters should be qualified to have spinout article status. And I don't see what OR has to do with this at all. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to argue at WP:N. It's written into the guideline already. And OR comes in because wikipedia isn't meant to be the first place work is done on a subject--in this case, critical analysis of these items. Protonk (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable, independent sources for these items, as is required by WP:N. This material would be better suited to a specialist Yu-gi-oh wiki or something of that nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Broadband via Commercial Aircraft (BCA)[edit]

The creator of this article removed a prod tag by adding information that does not address the concerns of the prod. While one reference gives a patent number, and the other one gives a potential coverage area, neither reference do establish any actual notability for this invention, either through actual usage or any other independent coverage. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find anything which would indicate any possible notability in google, searching either for the person or the product. But it is a common name, do my search there was not complete. DGG (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was, in general, a means to go the Last mile for widely spread out cities. I'm not sure that this particular solution is notable, but other prospects have had some coverage. A company named Angel Technologies Corporation pushed a project called HALO with an aircraft called Proteusin the late 1990's. It's apparently defunct, but the idea was popular before the widespread acceptance of DSL/Cable. This looks to be a product (or notion) that uses extant aircraft and provides broadband over prior flight paths--which would be unrelated to the technology in general. Looks like Scaled Composites Proteus is the "Proteus" I mentioned before. Searching for this particular product while excluding searches for HALO (and like programs) resulted in very little. I can't imagine that we can build an article on this subject yet. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the article writer/starter after I found this website Tele-Avionics and couldn't find any other information about this when I searched for it on the net. I think it should have some gereral informationvalue once it is completedDcpwr (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with only one non-independent reference, this is an article whose time has not come. Rklawton (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I'm a bit confuesd. I address all the remarks and added more refs and content. Yet the article was deleted this morning. I think the information is relavent and will develop as a source for information. Please keep the articleDcpwr (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you only get to vote once. Assuming the article is deleted, then just wait for the concept to "develop" and then try again. It's against policy to create articles of stuff that might one day be notable. It's not against policy to recreate an article if the situtation significantly changes. Rklawton (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So just becuase it does not exsits in Google^TM we shouldn't read about this?Dcpwr (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also accept references from reliable books, magazines, and journals. Without any of that, you're out of luck. Rklawton (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Kiss (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While there is a claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in the form of a national tour, there's no verification of same in the article, nor any that I could find. As acknowledged in the previous AfD, sources are hard due to same-name of a serial killer, but I find nothing for this band that provides verification of notability. Existence, yes. Notability, no. TravellingCari 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the info in the article is unverified. No sources cited in the article and nothing shows the existence of any independent sources providing significant coverage of the band. As the nom says, the choice of the band's name makes googling difficult, but, the best I could tell, all the googlenews hits[7] are false positives and are not related to the band. As it stands, fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Off-key in regard to WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary oak's cheerleaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gary oak's cheerleaders

Pure fancruft. As expected, I found absolutely no reliable sources on Google. This an an article about a fictional group of cheerleaders who appear in the Pokémon anime in a total of one episode, I believe. Artichoker[talk] 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. They have appeared in more than one episode, though. --TheLeft orium 21:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incidental characters that utterly fail WP:N and WP:FICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)
Strong delete One-shot characters, clearly not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world relevance indicated; WP:FICT. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amusing as I remember Gary's fangirls, I don't think they need an article. :) I suppose if someone really wanted to, they could merge the substantive information into whatever is Gary's article. --Gwern (contribs) 02:41 3 November 2008 (GMT)
Merge to his article. They at least can get a brief mention. I have to question the nominator, though. You say you believe they only appear in one episode, but the article itself mentions several other episodes they appear in. I don't think you should be nominating something for deletion without reading the article thoroughly first.kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very minor unnamed fictional characters --T-rex 16:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol delete Add a mention about them to Gary Oak's article though if not there already. Gary's harem of cheerleaders following him around in every episode that he appears in season one was one of his more notable aspects. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete – no indication of notability. ... discospinster _talk 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Benjamin Roberts[edit]

insufficiently referenced biography for non-notable person — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy, as this is a recreation of Jacob Roberts. A ni Mate 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of True Blood episodes. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Man in the Fire[edit]

Television episode with no assertion of notability. Depending on the results, may nominate the other episodes from this series. Powers ^T 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to True Blood and make a section with episode listings there. Writer, director, airing date are great data to make a nice table with. Episode are hardly ever notable outside the context of the shows they are about. The problem here is the lack of content to built a separate article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes an episode "notable"? Should all individual episode entries be deleted for all shows? I recall the initial entries for Lost being quite sparse, yet have greatly expanded as the show became more popular and the mythology expanded. Give it some time. googuse (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find the answer to your first question at WP:WAF#Notability. Your second question is irrelevant, because we're only talking about this show, not all shows. Powers ^T 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just make a detailed "Episodes of Season *x*" page like there is for so many other shows on Wikipedia? That way, if an indivuidal episode is truly notable, an article for it could be made, and also, so a small synopsis can be there for the episodes as well.--68.1.156.3 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of True Blood episodes. Has no stand-alone notability. If further notability is established, the article can be re-developed. I am also in support with nominator's idea and merging all the episodes (those with same structure and no specific notability) to the said article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable television episode, merge to List of True Blood episodes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Braga Simoes[edit]

No sources, no real assertation of notability. May be a translated job ("sunged"? Is that the past tense of "sung"?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the refs can be found under Sara Braga Simões, but I found several in Portuguese, including http://www.pnetliteratura.pt/noticia.asp?id=958 and http://www.musica.reitoria.uminho.pt/historial.html. I had tagged the article and removed the blog link earlier, but only now did a better search. I am not an expert on Opera, or Portuguese, but I am betting she has gotten enough press by the looks of what I found when really digging deep. Perhaps by a good margin. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I found tons of bad links from old sites when googling, and it took a bit of deeper searching to find the foreign language references. I certainly don't question the effort or faith of the nom, but think she is notable in opera, something you and I are not experts in. (I know for a fact that you like country music ;) I tagged for rescue, and yes, the article needs a TON of work. Whether the concensus thinks it is worth the effort or not, we will see. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment listed at Portugal and Opera wikiprojects. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : The article starts with "renowned Portuguese soprano" but we dont even know her birthdate or who she is for real. Most of information (almost all actually) about her are not in English; even so, I would say, information about her is very scarce. I am sorry to say that she is probably not notable enough to be granted an article in here just yet. This is just my opinion. - Jay (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve: If the article can be improved with sufficient reference, I agree for it to be kept. Btw, I like the way it looks and "sounds" now. - Jay (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : She's been singing at the Teatro Nacional de São Carlos as explained in her English language blog - also alongside no less a star than Vesselina Kasarova, Refs need improvement of course. --Klein zach 08:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a 'rescue job' on it and added a lot of references. Apart from singing in the Teatro Nacional de São Carlos, a major opera house, she has also sung in the world premieres of two operas by 21st century Portuguese composers, including Evil Machines, with a libretto by Terry Jones. In my view, she has enough to pass the criteria that the Opera Project tends to use for notability. To give you an idea of the kinds of requirements, here are some examples of AfDs for fledgling opera singers that failed: [8], [9], [10] and some that passed: [11], [12]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC) PS. Needless to say, I removed the "renowned" from the article. She's not renowned, but in my view she's notable and that's all she needs. Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Nice WP:HEY job on the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (formally Pharmboy)[reply]
Keep Per Voceditenore's fine work. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield Online[edit]

There are claims of notability but no evidence with which to back up those claims. Ghits are what you'd expect of an online forum but no evidence of notability and if the claims can't be verified, then it's run of the mill web content. Thoughts? Will withdraw, of course, if someone can source the claims. TravellingCari 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggest merge with Liverpool FC. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would set an alarming precedent, there are probably thousands of LFC related sites out there in webland, there's no way that the article should list them. --Ged UK (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:WEB. No assertion on notability of website or verification of claims made. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the below comment here from the talk page of this AfD, where it was (presumably) placed in error. I do not endorse the comment in any way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have addressed some of the notability concerns satisfying Criteria 3 of the WP:Web. The site is also notable locally - often being invited to discuss latest LFC results on air on local radio stations. WindChillFactor (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note- In order to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:WEB you would need third party reliable sources. Sources you have provided belong to website in concern here. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored the notability and sourcing tags. Sourcing it to the own site doesn't fulfill notability through reliable sources. StarM 13:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Non-notable. Even with the addition it still doesn't satisfy WP:WEB for me. Being invited onto local radio stations to talk about the results of the club is notability of the club and the station I'd have thought, not the site. --Ged UK (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan sites are two-a-penny (especially for a big club like this), and I can't see why this site is more notable than any of the others. Bettia (rawr!) 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Skitzo (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V language[edit]

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable, prototype project for a programming language created by a non-notable programmer whose article was recently deleted. Article has 11 inline references, 9 of them are completely trivial or self-publications, and 2 of them (#6 and #7) are the same link to a "Times of India" article, that talks about this project. Damiens.rf 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on the source called "Linux For You"? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Linux For You is probably this Indian Linux magazine. I was able to find their page for the September 2008 issue, but I wasn't able to find any mention of V. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 21:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon examination, this is strictly speaking not a programming language; it is a macro processor which expands certain fragments of a limited natural language into C code. These fragments, and their expansions, appear to have been specifically selected to make certain example programs compile. Without getting into too many technical details, it would be impossible to use this language for any practical purpose. All claims of its ability to apply AI techniques to suggest algorithms are currently inaccurate, as no such ability exists in the current version.
As far as the references go, most appear to be either self-published or irrelevant. The only two of any potential substance are the Linux For You appearance and the Times India article. As noted above, the mention in Linux For You appears to be trivial enough that it isn't mentioned in the online TOC. The Times India article can probably be discounted as well; it contains a number of rather glaring inaccuracies - for example, that the author is unusual in having written a language on his own. Not every news mention is an instant ticket to notability.
I wish the developers luck in their endeavor, and look forward to their article's return to Wikipedia - once it has been completed and/or has entered wider usage, and more reliable information is available about it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The TOI reference is a good single RS, but the limited interactions in the previous RfC and the IP removal of the advert tag with a misleading edit summary concern me. I'm inclined to deletion, but I want to give the article's proponents chances to find another good source. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - today i recvd an email asking me to give some clarifications reg the article on V.

The statement "strictly speaking not a programming language" is wrong. There are two versions for V - V as language and as application. For application part it is true. So is the case with the online parser Grogammer. But reg the language it is not so.

Now concerning the LFY article. It appeared in September issue. But it comes as a part of my column on Kernel programming Aasisvinayak (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aasisvinayak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is to say it was one more self-published mention?

Regarding to either or not it's a real programming language, it's not an editorial decision to judge that. We should wait for Mr. Aasisvinayak to publish his first academic papers on peer reviewed journals and follow the coverage by reliable sources, and then write an article supporting anything they say. For now, we only have self-published claims and a vague TOI article about the vagueness of the endeavor. --Damiens.rf 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not an editorial decision to judge that" - granted, yes. However, it is a pretty clear sign that the language cannot possibly be notable through its being used in real-world applications (because doing so would be impossible). It also means that academic interest is going to be limited to nonexistent. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to describe this as a language. Is more accurately a useless parsing program that is used by almost no one, and therefore unnotable --T-rex 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - It looks like a programming language. I looked at the documentation of V as a language. It seems viable. And with regard to the references, I don't find anything wrong. The two magazines and newspaper (toi) quoted in the article are credible . I think T-rex's commend (reg the project) is wrong Sforshyam (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Sforshyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The only 3rd party source is a newspaper, and it's not a reliable source in this context. Besides the general idea, the Wikipedia article is mostly vaporware, and so is the newspaper article. I cannot find any discussion in specialized press. It's easy for journalists to get excited about stuff they don't understand. For comparison purposes, look at the article for NimbleX: surely it was covered by the mainstream press in its country of origin, but the Wikipedia article is not based on that coverage (which is only mentioned), but rater on the articles that appeared in the specialized press, because the latter actually involve some critical thinking. No objections to recreating this article when there's some coverage that allows a substantive presentation. Besides, the software is in pre-alpha stage. Right now WP:NOT#NEWS applies: a single blip in a newspaper does not make a Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thank You for Smoking (novel). Mr.Z-man 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Naylor[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its single novel and film adaptation, and a few minor cameos, through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He is notable. --Fixman^{Praise me} 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article does need a bit of work, but having appeared in multiple works of fiction and a fairly notable film adaptation, I'd say he deserves an article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thank You For Smoking. He's the main character in Thank You For Smoking, but the other mentions are simply passing mentions, aka cameo appearances and have no effect on his notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable character, in multiple prominent artistic works, has good potential for expansion. This is just the latest piece of TTN's tiresome vendetta against these articles. Rebecca (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only read Thank You For Smoking, so I'm not sure how large a role Naylor has in the other three books. But it seems to me that we could at least use this as a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 07:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thank You for Smoking; article has no evidence of having received significant (or any) coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reviews that discuss the character in some detail. [13] for example. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the article mentions nothing more than the fictional character's reference in but 1 piece of literature. Should he appear in more works like Captain Nemo then there should be some mention, although more than year of it's presence on wikipedia not seem to have added any notability whatsoever.

And does the phrase "He is notable" count as a reason to keep it? Doesn't have much basis? Could well be a vested interest in it? (note: i'm not saying it is the case, this time, but it could well be. simply that no reason was given) Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sick time[edit]

Very likely a hoax about non-existent band. Googling "Sick Time" + "Gord" + "Loo" (Gord and Loo are named as members) produces 29 hits, none about the band. No sources in article. Creator of article has made almost no other contributions. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources either. I should note that the article is a translation, but I have not altered the names from the original Norwegian article. nneonneo ^talk 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All Wee Have" (1984), "Love It" (1985), "I are the One" (1987). Are 'Wee' and 'I are' machine translation errors or are those the true titles? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not translate them from the initial revision (except for case changes, since the original only used lowercase). nneonneo ^talk 21:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wouldn't surprise me if there was such a band, but lack of cites and any clear google hits suggests a lack of notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the hoax remark, but the lack of notability is blatant. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax, or plain nonsense. Certainly no evidence of notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and redirect to Sick leave. Everyking (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 series[edit]

Non-notable Youtube series. ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first sentence says it all: "2012 is an upcoming stop motion series on youtube. there are going to be 3 stories exodus,clones, and armegedon". In other words a violation of WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, especially when the reference link has nothing to do with the article and the only place you can get info is self-published. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Husseini Shobar[edit]

Unkown personality. Seems like a promotion page Fastabbas (talk · contribs) Copied from edit summary when Fastabbas placed AfD notice ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would argue that this just barely fails WP:A7 but fails WP:BIO. However, he is linked to from List of Ayatollahs; is this person one and the same? If so, this information (that he is an Ayatollah) needs to be added to the page and he would therefore pass WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this guy is in fact an ayatollah, then that's sufficiently notable for a small article (and he probably is a Shiite, given that he's from najaf. This article fails to even mention that basic fact). However, I can find only one reference to Mazidi Mosque in Kuwait on google -- which is this wikipedia page. The link at the bottom would probably help sort this out to an arabic speaker. If he is not even an ayatollah and does not have some broader cutlural relevance, then being a prayer leader alone is non-notable. There are millions of them. I think policy is lenient, but if I were wikipedia king i would simply delete this article since it's not written anywhere near to acceptable standard.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern names often have alternative spellings. Perhaps we're looking under the wrong spelling, any guesses on alternatives? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequately sourced BLP of a person of questionable notability. RMHED (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, meaning it's not referenced and doesn't establish notability.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Physical[edit]

Non-notable compilation, unreferenced, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, no sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of context or showing of notability. Keep based on Deor's research, which shows notability beyond doubt, as well as a source for the evidence. Nice work, D. I have to admit, I got a laugh out of the typo in this one (a "copilation video"). I'm sure that it was referring to a compilation, but it could probably be enjoyed during something else. And it probably has been. Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a compilation by a notable artist. The nominator did not explain why the article failed notability requirements and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion debates clearly states that there should be an attempt to fix surmountable problems (like a lack of references; see WP:NOTCLEANUP for more detail). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this (to say nothing of a WP article), this won a Grammy for Video of the Year. Does that make it notable? Deor (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. That's enough to change my !vote, and I think that it's now an obvious keep. Good work. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to say keep then, too. In a hasty review of WP:NM and WP:NF I didn't see anything specifically about videos like this one. When I get a chance, I'll add a mention of the award to the article. Deor (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete on author's request.- Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldwater (software)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the article, apparently, but have no recollection of doing so. Notability not established, prospects for expansion beyond a ministub seem slim. Software itself doesn't seem to be actively updated either. Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will tag this as csd-g7 because the article creator wants it deleted. Schuym1 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Most Wanted#AMW Dirty Dozen. So Why 21:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eischeid[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable fugitive, fails WP:BIO. Reverend X (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Reverend X (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Most Wanted#AMW Dirty Dozen. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm to America's Most Wanted#AMW Dirty Dozen. This is a WP:ONEEVENT biography. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RMHEAD (below) is right. No objection to deleting the article then redirecting. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to America's Most Wanted#AMW Dirty Dozen, this isn't a legitimate BLP. RMHED (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delete As per above well reasoned comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. This appears quite notable; some work towards expanding the article may be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Wrestling[edit]

Per WP:NALBUMS : All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article was PROD October 30 and removed November 2 with the rationale "If the band is notable enough for an article here, then a released album would be. If band article is deleted, then ok but it should be handled at the band article". Currently the article does nothing to establish the albums notability, currently there are no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that allow for a release from an artist to automatically have an article of it's own. For definitions of terms such as "significant coverage" please see WP:GNG. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an expand. Band is notable, and while that doesn't guarantee inherent notability for the album, I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt. There're two third-party reviews, and I'm sure there's more to say about this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert on the policy, but I read the next line to say it should be kept: In general, 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. This is an officially released album (not a demo, etc). My experience is that the concensus is to keep these unless it is a promo only, demo, etc. This is why I removed the PROD tag, under this assumption. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews from reliable sources, and the artist being independently notable (although the band article needs sourcing) means that an article is justified. For articles like this, where the artist is notable, I feel that any concerns about the album's notability should be addressed by a merge proposal rather than nomination for deletion, if it is determined by research that there are insufficient sources to support a separate article.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this review and this from Rolling Stone, and there are quite a few Google News hits.--Michig (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this article is quite sparse in content, the review by Rolling Stone and the others mentioned indicate there are enough reliable sources to work off. Also, this is not just an album, this is a notable band's debut album. Even if you feel not every single album by an artist requires an entry, surely a well-referenced debut does. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously biased towards keeping it because I started the page and did most of it. Considering some of the other music pages on this site (which I won't name) are allowed to stay that are nothing more than "(SONG)" is a song by (BAND) from their (YEAR) album (ALBUM NAME), I don't see why this page wouldn't be allowed. I added the cover, a couple linked reviews, and a couple categories, and the page is farther along that many others by more "known" bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayzinSmith (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Burger 2 Go[edit]

Unnotable "proclaimed" future film that fails WP:NFF. Entire article appears to be based on a single rumor supposedly "leaked" poster. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH PANDA ^duel 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defines WP:CRYSTAL. All the article has to go on for the existence of this film is a poster. And it doesn't even seem to be a film, but a young adult novel based on the film (if the categories are anything to go by), so it's either a poster or a book cover. Both aren't good sources by themselves at all to confirm the existence of a film/novel. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ostrovsky[edit]

the player may exist but he actually not yet make his professinoal debut as no record in 08-09 season (eg.[http://www.superliga.rs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159&catid=34&Itemid=98). Matthew_hk t c 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence that he has actually played at professional level is provided. E P 13:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmmm.... he certainly has signed for them but this site suggests he hasn't played in their first team yet. Like the link provided by Matthew_hk however, Soccerway makes no mention of him, and FK Vojvodina's website draws a blank as well. Bettia (rawr!) 14:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no info contianed or proof he has played a professional game. Skitzo (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi Characters in bollywood movies[edit]

Indiscriminate list, no sources. Someone tried to list this but didn't finish, and of course, I was the only person in the whole project to noticed the redlinked afd in the log. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree: list with no assertions, explanations, notabilities, or references attached to it. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE -- I disagree completely: The article is in process of being modified and polished. It is a long drawn process and you cannot pass a judgement like this, without reasonable grounds. Isn't it a moderators duty also to verify the source and also exercise reasonable restraint while marking articles for deletion? It seems that the mods interest here is placed higher than the General Wikipedia interest. In such a list you cannot expect assertions and explanations. The only ground you were right on was sources / references, which have now been provided. It does not seem that the mod has understood the contents of the article and hence has acted rashly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzbehraja (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and cross-categorization. The article is indiscriminate collection of information, asserts no importance of the list and is poorly sourced. Also, why are there both PROD and AfD tags on the article? More notably PROD was added immediately after AfD. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 06:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist influences on print technology[edit]

Lengthy, but not encyclopedic essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is definitely useful information for writing an article and we shouldn't disappear it. It does not belong in article space at this point. Take it to my userspace if nobody else will deal with it. Shii (tock) 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of this material is already in History of typography in East Asia and related articles. But its a good essay, and we could probably mergein some of it. DGG (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, even just basic formatting (possible copyvio paste job?) but I'd love to read the finished article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a merge, as suggested by DGG. This reminds me of one of my favorite lines from M*A*S*H. B.J. Hunnicut noted that the Koreans "were printing with movable type in 1403", and Hawkeye's reply was "I was in 1401 and the noise kept me up all night!" Mandsford (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. Interesting by not encyclopedic. McWomble (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, likely copy-pasted from other sources. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe you are assuming bad faith, or more specifically, bad scholarship. Shii (tock) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is copied from someplace else, but I also don't see why we should have such a lengthy essay on this topic. This actually looks like a researched term paper, and it's not a bad paper, but it's certainly not an encyclopedic article. Now, the problem with merging or saving some of the information is that having to go through such a lengthy article to find the important encyclopedic nuggets is an arduous task, and I for one would be unwilling to have to do that kind of work. Better to start from scratch, if this needs to be a WP article. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think something of value is in here, but it will require a major rewrite in order for it to reach its full potential. For starters, the title needs to be changed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a good deal of work. That's not a criterion for deletion, though. Notable subject, referenced. Wily D 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the proper work is a merge with the article suggested above. DGG (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy This is an essay not an encyclopedic article. And it's chock full of original research and opinion and almost wholly without references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Finitevus[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find even a passing reference in a RS. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as for the other characters. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri the Echidna[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and is wholly constitutive of plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this character is a major villain of Sonic the Hedgehog. Comic books are perfectly acceptable sources on Wikipedia. And notability cannot be "established" as notability is purely a subjective opinion. If the article contains any original research, the solution is to remove the original research, not delete the article. And WP:PLOT does not have the consensus required to be policy. This is just another disruptive cut-and-paste nomination by a disgruntled Pokemon fan with an axe to grind, who has little to no experience in writing or improving articles. WP:PLOT was (wrongly) used to get rid of all the Pokemon articles, so now TTN is on a crusade against every article about fictional characters. It's pathetic and childish. If this is an example of TTN's work, I have serious doubts about TTN's ability to determine what any article needs. Your time would be better spent trading your Pokemon cards with your buddies Nemu, and letting people with actual skills write this encyclopedia instead of tearing it down because you don't know how to. This temper tantrum by TTN after a six-month editing restriction by the Arbitration Committee is deplorable, and just proves that you have learned nothing. If TTN can't have an article for every one of his Pokemon, there can't be an article for any fictional character, right? The sad thing is that little Nemu doesn't realize his actions are only enriching Jimbo Wales through his fiction wiki, and not improving Wikipedia in the least. No, that would actually take some effort, instead of mindless, brainless cut-and-paste Twinkle AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on content, not on the contributor.
  Secondly; (a) Notability, as defined as an English Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Notability, is definitively objective. (b) Removing the paragraph stipulating the impropriety of plot-constitutive articles from the English Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not change long-standing consensus therein. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as for the other characters. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. DGG (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Utterly in-universe, overly detailed plot summary, propped up without the aid of a single reliable or third-party--or any whatsoever, though perhaps I overlooked one--sources, with not the slightest suggestion of interest by the world at large. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Records[edit]

Same/similar concerns as 22 Cats as also expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Cats. Notability in doubt in regard to music criteria. — Realist² 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artists self publishing albums. Doesn't make my cut. Sorry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Larry Sanders show didn't achieve spectacular ratings, but was well known within the industry that it lampooned, and is a landmark in situation comedy. I don't believe that the inclusion of an article on Paula hurts wikipedia at all, though I do think the title should be shifted to Paula (The Larry Sanders Show). - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters require some sort of real world impact detailed by reliable sources to have articles. The fact that it does no harm to have an article is of little consequence. The character can adequately be described in the main article, while the episode list can take care of any separate appearances. TTN (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, along with all the other Secondary Characters listed in the template. Next to zero chance of any third party notice for any of them. The show was exceptional, but notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gnews turns up a lot, but all of it behind a pay wall. A book search turns up a lot more [14]. Looking over the books and gnews hits, I think there are enough RS with which to build an article. Going to be hard with that paywall though. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of Hobit's references. I note that there is no requirement at all for online material to be free--we do however need to get enoughof an exceprt to show that its more than a passing mention. DGG (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artie (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reasons as in the Paula (character) nomination. TTN, would you mind if we combined the nominations? I have also reordered the AfD page to put the two nominations together. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but don't combine the nominations. Artie is one of the three major characters on the show, whereas Paula was a minor one. He's praised in Time magazine ("the most terrifyingly unctuous producer ever to stalk a green room")[15] and every review of the show I've seen mentions him (and Hank). Rip Torn won one Emmy and was nominated for a second for his performance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepon the basis of the emmy. That';s sufficient, and, because of it there will be enough sources. DGG (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. merge results don't need an AFD and this is far from overwhelming so default to keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O'Neill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Timothy O'Neill

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to the list of characters, as usual. I never did figure out why these are brought him, except that perhaps even the merged content would be though objectionable by the nom--but that's a content dispute. DGG (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge completed, decided to boldly follow DGG's advice. 128.223.131.21 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd settle for a merge for the time being, but knowing TTN's rampages of destruction of articles, it should never have been nominated. ----DanTD (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coming back to check, i se the ip who thought he was following my advice, redirected instead of merging. So of course I reverted it, and leave this to someone neutral to close as they see fit. But this does echo my comment, that the opposition to merging seems to come from the fact that often the content is destroyed completely--just like was attempted by some anon right here just now. I'll accept in good faith that he thought he was helping. DGG (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the other character articles into List of characters in Daria. Article as is is essentially just an extended plot summary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep contra nom due to notability, coverage in reliable third party sources, and as necessary unoriginal research. Suggesting that any article can not somehow be improved is a salutary gesture of pessimism, but not a serious argument. Thus, the nominator is quite wrong.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Not covered in reliable, independent sources in any significant detail. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in Daria.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sloane[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably,to List of characters in Daria with an expanded description. Though not one of the groups there, he's more than background. The principal character's boyfriend usually is. And it seems to be sourced. so, as usual, "there is no assertion for future improvement' makes no sense at all--all articles can be improved if t. The show ended, but writing about it is only just beginning. If there is ever enough for a separate article, then it can be unmerged. DGG (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list. THe one source cited provides only trivial commentary about the character. Fletcher (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here to see if there were any comments and I found an ip editor had redirected it. I reverted. Either we need a longer discussion, or there's consensus to merge, not redirect. I leave it to some neutral admin to close as they see fit. DGG (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the other character articles into List of characters in Daria. Article as is is essentially just an extended plot summary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep contra nom due to notability, coverage in reliable third party sources, and as necessary unoriginal research. Suggesting that any article can not somehow be improved is a salutary gesture of pessimism, but not a serious argument. Thus, the nominator is quite wrong.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in Daria. So Why 11:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Taylor[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as for the other non-principal characters in this cartoon series to an article for them all. Individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. I am reluctant to consider every character in every show individually here, if we can get a general rule. What gets a combination article, what a separate one, is basically just a matter of organization. To call it notability is a misunderstanding of what N ought to be used for. The idea of a "separate article" being a big deal one way or another for closely related topics is very PRINTY. And, in any case, to use an argument for deletion indicating nothing whatever about the particular article involved is not very helpful--some of those nominating such characters do better than this. DGG (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here to see if there were any comments and I found someone at an ip address had decided to redirect the article before it got closed, so I reverted it. . Redirect is not = merge, and it looks like we need a longer discussion. DGG (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently, this person at said ip address enjoys deleting articles as much as TTN does. And while Brittany Taylor is far from the main character, she's just enough of a supporting character to have a separate article, so I say. ----DanTD (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the character meets the necessary threshold, but it's arguable. Many of these characters including Daria herself were part of another show first. Is there any harm in letting her live on as her own page and see if something comes of her? She seems fairly notable, though mostly as part of the main show. (I changed the formatting of the comment above mine to better show their vote).ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all the other character articles into List of characters in Daria. Article as is is essentially just an extended plot summary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Seems like the right decision at this time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic people in the United Kingdom[edit]

Article is based on a collection of information about surnames, which may violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and isn't necessarily even a reliable indicator of ethnicity, is of questionable notability (Hispanic is not a widely used term in the UK) and is not needed given the existence of Latin American Britons and Spanish migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Latin American Britons. TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think that would be a good redirect because many (at a guess I would say probably most) Hispanic people in the UK trace their origins to Spain rather than to Latin America, and (also a guess from personal experience) I think the largest group of Latin Americans in the UK are non-Hispanic Brazilians. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above this is not a commonly used concept in the UK. People of Spanish origin and those of Latin American Hispanic origin have little in common apart from their language, and are not usually grouped together in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed This article covers information already in the Spanish and Latin Americans in the UK articles, however if this article is deleted, the surnames are definately note worthy and should be put on another page instead. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Monica Edwards. This is an obvious merge target for the limited content. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punch Bowl Farm[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. It seems to be an ordinary farm. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Monica Edwards if anything is worth merging, Redirect if not. Notability for one event only normally warrants a mention in the article the subject is notable for and nothing more. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Monica Edwards. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Monica Edwards. Nothing to tell about the place besides her involvement. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Monica Edwards, per above comments. Only notable for association with Monica Edwards books and does not appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayla Mia[edit]

No independant coverage found, and can't find any sources to confirm that she was a Penthouse Pet and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Tatarian (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent reliable source proves notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Balance[edit]

Essay like effort devoid of references. Author has declared that he will fix references but there is no sign that any effort is being made in this direction despite prompting by several editors. The article is riddled with WP:OR and fails WP:NPOV and WP:V also. The article purports to be worldwide, but actually only covers the Japanese sphere. It could also be considered to be a fork as it is the same subject as Military capabilities SpinningSpark 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Buckshot06(prof) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a rather biased essay rather than a wiki article, and entirely subjective. Skinny87 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is virtually unreferenced and as is, is full of POV. While there may be a place in Wikipedia for a properly referenced, NPOV article on the East Asian military balance, this isn't it, and it would probably be easier to start from scratch - therefore Delete . Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
provisional keep. I just saw this debate posted somewhere asking for comment:I have no particular background about the subject or wiki coverage of the same generally. However, first, absence of refs is no reason to delete an article, nor is OR or POV, or incompleteness. These are all reasons to fix one, not delete it. Whether it ought to exist depends on whether the subject is a worthwhile one. It sounds as though it is. My reservation is whether a similar article already exists on the same subject, for their certainly ought to be one. 'Military Capabilities' is a list, not an article, and a short one at that.Sandpiper (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusingly, there is an article military capability as well, which is prose, not a list. POV and OR are reasons to delete if the article consists of nothing else. If all this is stripped out of the article all that is left is an (unreferenced) list which is even more incomplete than the existing list article. SpinningSpark 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a POV essay with no references and some dubious claims. I agree that it would be possible to write a very good article on regional military balances (there's certainly lots of excellent references to help with this) but this article is so far from the necessary quality that it would require a complete re-write. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Torn on this one, current version is clearly unsuitable but the topic has potential. I'd always prefer to fix an article with potential rather than delete but this will need a ton of work. Justin talk 10:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update The author has just deleted all the prose from the article, leaving just the tables. Don't know if it is in reaction to this debate. I would say that definitely now makes it the same topic as Military capabilities. SpinningSpark 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRAL Hi　sorry about your time gentlemen. I deleted my detail describe (Essay Part). So I think it improved about NPOV&OR. And I paste Japan Defense Ministry’s Source. And please read materials at bottom. This Article is not OR. DPRK’s Missiles can strike Tokyo[16]
Regarding DPRK’s 3deliveable Nuke warheads and Big reactor please read this [17]
BUT I changed my mind. I hope Japan join in NATO but if European people understand Military Balance at far east then they may reject it. So after I report the situation, if European person wants to delete this article as an OR, it’s their freedom. I should better shut my mouth for our benefit. BTW I really hope US export us F22--Jack332 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list already exists. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the potential article is little more than a definition with no scope for further discussion.ALR (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Hogan[edit]

Unreferenced BLP. Nothing in Ghits supports it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone must have edited the page in the meantime, because I don't see anything disparaging in there. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no edits to the article since its nomination. I had initially tagged the article for speedy A7, but I reverted my own tag after the article was expanded enough to assert notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search designed to ignore hits on another Bryan Hogan returns nothing of substance. Conscious that including the city might return false negatives, I tried this search key, which returned only the Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The assertions of notability don't even include enough detail to make any judgements--WHERE did he play those parts he claims? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I must disagree with Blanchard in that I see no assertion of notability. I must lament the lack of sourcing. If WP:RS had been presented in the article, the question of notability would be easier to determine. There is no BLP issue as BLP was intended to to address abuse of the pedia through defamation or promotion. There is not even enough content for that. Simple, straight forward not meeting WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did see one notability assertion, and that's why I felt I had to remove my own speedy tag. The problem is, as you say, there are no sources to back it up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North of Boston Library Exchange[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant public sector initiative that can be sourced see here. The second para includes clear claims of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but likely this should be merged with Minuteman Library Network and expanded to create an article about all interlibrary consortiums in Massachusetts. The lists of libraries could maybe be turned into a color-coded map of the state plus some external links. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Mage[edit]

Does not make any sense. Porollostracuos (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per massive concensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of moods[edit]

We don't need this unsourced list. Alexius08 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm ashamed to say I get irritated to the point of going crazy when people misspell "aggravated". However, in a calm, detached, even enlightened moment, I note that nothing really links to this article, and that the links in the list are a random collection of stuff, occasionally related to the topic. Curious.

By the way, the one page that does link to it, Talk:Linguistic modality, did so in a comment almost a year old, yet the article was created today. Was this deleted before? Rklear (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN and delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate orphan list that doesn't have any boundaries set. Not useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a fridge. VG ☎ 16:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G7. Author blanked the page here. MSGJ 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Must have been a test page of something --Numyht (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulubey canyon[edit]

No sources for verifiability despite claims of being "the world’s second longest canyon". Orphaned article with no external or inbound links whatsoever. Google yields little. Flewis^(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom --Flewis^(talk) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Ulubey Canyon is mentioned in all these: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], which seem to back up the claim to being the world's second-largest canyon. I would guess that there are some good sources in Turkish, so I am inclined to keep this.--Michig (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Google News results.--Michig (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Google scholar results - the canyon appears to have considerable historical significance.--Michig (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second site in Michig's list mentions the canyon in passing and doesn't appear to be authorative on the subject. They could well be republishing hearsay. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Michig's numerous sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources back up the claim, which makes this a valid geographical location with potential for expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a well-verified major geographical feature - exactly the sort of thing encyclopedias are for. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only two !votes for delete in all of this text proves that this discussion is happening in the wrong venue: this is not what AfD is for. Additionally, it is clear that no consensus is going to come from this debate. And the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. All in all, this AfD is over. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango[edit]

At article's present length, it is exactly redundant with coverage at Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 09:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 09:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator (Me!) believes rationale above no longer applies, due expansion in bio (as of Nov. 3rd) primarily concerning Aunt Zeituni's immigration controversy. (My !vote at current bottom of page.)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is moved here from article's talkpage:

Merge This a WP:CFORK of Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. VG ☎ 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is an unnecessary article that should be redirected to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. There is no independent notability and this matter is handled there. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No point in duplication. This person is also only notable for being a family member - so she belongs on a family article (split only if that article gets overlong). Agree with merge/redirect.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first post here was made 19:25, and a non-admin user claims "consensus" at 21:01 [24], is this really ridiculous on it's face like it seems? This has to be one of the most un-wiki things I've seen. Obviously there is no consensus to do this nor can it be after on hour. What's next? First poster declares consensus disruptively after 3 minutes based on his own opinion? Oppose any such merge oppose disruptive closing of discussion after 1 hour. We have processes like Afd (mandatory run for 5 days) for a reason so everyone can have a voice, so we can have discussion. There is no discussion and zero reasoning and arguments above. Of course how could there be in just a short time. I ask everyone to follow wikipedia processes on deletion, discussion and consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some comment to make on the merits of why there should be a separate article on this individual? What I see is no independent notability, and to the extent she is known, it is for one thing only - both of which would suggest that the redirect makes sense. So if you think this article should stand, could you share why? Also, don't you think you a should have reinstated the merge tag when you reinstated the page? Tvoz/talk 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(please don't modify your comment like that, it's not what I replied to ,ec) Yes, first of all discussion should run it's course with multiple people having the opportunity to comment, so that's a procedural reason for the time being. However also there is the reason that I see no evidence that this person would be non-notable. In fact a simple search of reliable sources on Google News shows that she was notable enough for around 2200 articles at the moment. These are only English language sources and only those tracked by the service. I can confirm that she received international coverage as well outside of the US. It is also probable that the level of notability will increase rather than decrease with time for the moment at least. All these facts lead to the conclusion that this person is far more notable than a good percentage of existing articles, and far more notable than the standards we use for inclusion. Also I fail to see what is the 'one thing' that she is known for? Is it being written about in "Dreams From My Father", is it moving to the US, is it qualifying in an unprecedented manner for federal tax dollars in federal housing, is it contributing to the presidential campaign as a non-citizen? Is it influencing a presidential campaign in the last days? Which would be the one thing, rather it seems that the she is known internationally for many things. There are many Obama relatives who are never written about in the press, because they are not notable for doing anything. Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status that mysteriously came out a handful of days before the presidential election, likely in order to try to embarrass the candidate. There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election, and if it does it would belong at most as a small note in the article about the election. That doesn't merit a biography. Nor does being a minor character in his memoir. As for your prediction that the coverage will increase - if that happens, an article can always be created. We are not the news - there will be plenty of time in the future to determine if she has become notable enough to warrant an article. Tvoz/talk 08:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status" False. The media reported it even before the AP broke the illegal immigration story. Read the first articles they have nothing about illegal immigration. "There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election" did you actually check the articles? If you do some simple searches I'm sure you can find all the articles discussing how the story a few days before election is significant. We have multiple press releases from the Obama campaign. If it has no significance how do you explain the press releases from a presidential campaign? Hobartimus (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it has no significance how do you explain also the following "Onyango's case resulted in an special nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations to be approved at the level of ICE regional directors before the U.S presidential election.[6]" Hobartimus (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it also depends about how you define "one story" or one thing. Obama is only notable for his "political activities" but I think it's a stretch to define "one story" this way that it includes so many things and events. I mean you must admit that there is multiple things here, the immigration status, the special nationwide order to halt all deportations, there is the public housing, there is the campaign contributions, the return of those contributions, being featured in the best selling book by Obama, the coverage itself, possible effect on the election (I know you doubt it, but I think possible is a word that can be agreed on, also effect does not mean it turns it but that it moves some votes) . Hobartimus (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←No, the comparison to Obama is not at all correct. And I disagree with your assertion that these are unrelated stories. All of the stories about Zeituni come back to the immigration status story - contributions and their return are only an issue if she doesn't have a green card, the article itself says that the deportation approval directive came out of this story, we do not write articles about every person in his or any book, and I do not see anything regarding a "public housing" issue - in fact the articles I read say there is no issue and you should be careful of BLP violations on this. You may be hoping this affects the election outcome, but there's no reporting that it is having such an effect, and we do not write about "possible" effects - we wait, because there is no emergency, until there actually is an effect that is notable. You seem to be in a big rush and haven't explained why. In any case, the suggestion was to merge with the already existing section in the Family article, so anything of any real notability can be put into that section. You haven't demonstrated a need for a standalone article. Let's see what other editors think - you've made your point. Tvoz/talk

$\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 10:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FromWP:NOTABILITY

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who makes the claim that "Zeituni Onyango" did NOT receive "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"? Anyone who makes that statement in light of the evidence and challenge the inclusion as a stand-alone article. I think it's high time we base the discussion on Wikipedia's rules. Search of reliable sources shows not only significant, but large amounts of coverage and as such the article is clearly notable as a stand alone article. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~/merge~~ ~~to family article.~~ The claim that "[t]his person is also only notable for being a family member" [Scott, above] is misleading - Hobartimus is correct that the subject easily passes the WP:GNG and as such this Afd should never have been started, and will only lead to acrimony. A stand-alone article on Onyango would necessarily be a WP:COATRACK given current sources, as I have not yet seen significant coverage of Onyango's life per se. It is entirely possible that such sources will emerge in the near future. Until then, the material is better presented in an article about Obama first and foremost, and that article is Family of Barack Obama. the skomorokh 12:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article now contains far too much relevant, reliably sourced content to merit a merge. Could easily make a Good Article as a standalone. the skomorokh 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No point in duplication. This person is also only notable for being a family member - so she belongs on a family article (split only if that article gets overlong). Agree with merge/redirect--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Do you have any evidence for the claim that she is "only notable for being a family member"? I see many one sentence entries in the Family of Barack Obama, from people who are truly "only notable for being a family member". Hobartimus (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Comment (see further below for my !vote after the rewrite) User:Hobartimus just recreated this WP:CFORK against consensus. The article had already been merged (by copying it) to Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango per WP:BIO1E. This is the version I've merged, and it is practically identical to the original at the time of the merge. Other users worked on the section since then, and removed some material. User:Hobartimus disagrees with their changes, but a WP:CFORK is not the Wikipedia way to address it. VG ☎ 14:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep - with the US Presidential election only two days away, it's virtually impossible to fairly consider the merits of this article without getting caught up in political considerations. As such, I think the most reasonable approach is to keep the article until after the election, when we will be able to objectively assess its notability. (At that point, I would probably argue for a merge, due to WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues.) Terraxos (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the current version of the article [25] is significantly different now, changing the redundant situation described at nomination of this Afd. Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect per the discussion above. Duplicate information is already covered elsewhere, so we need to redirect to point people to the right spot. If a case can be made for independent notability, the article should be kept. Either way, there is no valid case for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (see below for new comment)[reply]

Restore redirect per VasileGaburici not more notable than other obama relatives to justify own article inspite of recent media coverage Thisglad (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable in light of media coverage. However, this whole Afd has to be viewed in light of the election in a few days time. Francium12 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOT#NEWS. If this woman weren't an obscure relative of the ~~next President of the United States~~ the Democratic candidate for President, would this have been reported on? No. She is no more independently notable for having been in a flurry of news stories than she was before the flurry. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, this otherwise obscure person does not need a biography article. -Nard 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge She has gotten only 2 days worth coverage and not even headlines but a secondary story. She is only being not because of her connect to the Obama family. Mean his Granny Obama has gotten more media coverage then his Auntie Zeituni and more details about his sister Auma are given in Dreams from my Father then Auntie Zeituni and yet both those example don't have their own article. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Francium12. I also suggest delaying any action until after the US election has been sorted out. If Obama does win there is little doubt that every family meber will be heaped with attention and with modern gossipers and technology there is little doubt more is forthcoming. Google News pops an impressive 2600+ stories as of this writing and little doubt this will be leveraged in the election by Obama's opposition. -- Banjeboi 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting keep the article because there might be more details? WP:CRYSTAL. I have strong doubt that anything else will come out about this, unless Obama once inaugurated takes some action on her behalf. Since any such action could happen at a minimum almost three months from now, keeping an article in the expectation that something might happen then is ludicrous. There needs to be a demonstration now that the article passes WP:BIO and, since this person's news coverage is as the result of a single event, she fails WP:BIO1E. There are millions of alleged illegal aliens in the country right now. Would this story have ever been written if she weren't related to Obama, who's met her what, three times in the past three decades or something? Of course not, and since notability is not inherited here's no excuse for keeping this as a separate article. It's not like, should she suddenly become known for something other than this one event, the redirect can't be undone and the article restored. There's no reason to keep this around to as there is nothing that can't be housed completely in the main article on Obama's family. Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
without intending any offense, those suggesting that the deletion be postponed until the election is over are being ridiculous, and other than the coverage of her immigration status only because she is Senator Obama's relative, there isn't any link directly to the U.S election, and the McCain campaign refused to comment, as well as Obama himself denying any link to her immigration status. The article should be restored to the redirect per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS Thisglad (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into a big thing here ... with over 2000 news stories there does seem to be plenty to warrant a stubby article if nothing else right now. What I'm suggesting is that within a few days we'll have an even better perspective on 1. Does this person have an impact on the US election (similar to Joe the plumber) and 2. If Obama is elected then all relatives of a sitting President are undoubtedly going to get more media attention. We don't need to be in a rush to delete this article which has sources - with plenty more available and certainly seems notable. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there are 2000 unique news stories, which makes your claim somewhat deceptive, rather it is a couple of unique press releases from the associated press repeated on several thousand websites that carry those releases. Perhaps in the future if this individual becomes more notable she would deserving of a biographical article on wikipedia. Thisglad (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can look to see that there is much more than "a couple of unique press releases" simply repeated. In the latest search that number has creeped up to 2,732 articles including quite a few other countries. Multiple independent sources are quite evident at this point. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

Merge and redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango where it already is. Per WP:RECENT,WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, for starters. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what the alleged one event would be, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject demonstrate notability. From coverage in Obama's memoirs to today she has been in reliable sources for quite some time. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no one sought to add her to the encyclopedia before her immigration status was reported is proof that she is only really notable for one event, the article is not a biography that asserts any notability other than her being related to Obama. Thisglad (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a leap of bad faith that the article was created solely to discredit Obama. Whether or not this article exists there is little doubt information about this latest episode in this saga of an election will be on Wikipedia - likely in several appropriate articles. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that's why it was created, but it's has been suggested by the media that the timing of the release to the election was not coincidental, however that doesn't make Zeituni Onyango deserving of a biography on wikipedia just because she is related to Obama Thisglad (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.
That media sources have questioned the timing would be relevant material to also add to the article. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. This is precisely the sort of thing where having the AfD now just isn't that productive. We should wait until after the election to figure out whether or not we should have an article on her that is separate. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the reasoning you are advocating, we should undelete all the non notable biographies previously deleted, because they might gain more notability in the future Thisglad (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete strawman. The point is that this is about a still ongoing news issue that is gaining international attention. It makes sense to wait until the dust has settled after the election to make a decision. That's distinct from some a not notable article where absolutely nothing is happening in respect to that article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge It's worth noting that this AfD will close after the 4th, when no one will care about this person. Redirect per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS. Protonk (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a clear winner in the election. It has been contentious the last two rounds. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if we repeat the florida mess, no one will give a second thought to Ashely Todd or this woman. Vagaries of the news cycle, I'm afraid. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly - but that conclusion would seem WP:Crystal. This does seem to one of the more notable asylum cases and this case may also bring profound attention to asylum and immigration issues including how she was accepted for public assistance. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's one of my pet peeves. Making guesses on future events in article spaces is crystal balling. Speculating on a subject absent sourcing is original research--in article space. Here at the AfD it is just having a discussion. We can have a discussion that my speculation on the subject may be unfounded or innacurate, but it isn't "WP:CRYSTAL" :) As for the future debate over asylum seekers because of the incident, maybe. I can say I'm surprised at the media sucking at the figurative teat of Joe the Plumber for so long. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. This election is worldwide news and every aspect of it is exponentially dissected and magnified. That asylum cases were put on extra review until after the election because of this case is certainly an indication it's beyond the ordinary. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is also the argument that the asylum case review and the leak to the press of the outcome were the same sort of actions as the passport breach from earlier this year. Honestly, my main point is this: we have a responsibility to this woman to be able to write a biographical article if we are to keep it. If all we can get in terms of coverage of the subject is that she is an illegal immigrant and related to Obama, then we can't build a biographical article and the information belongs someplace else. Preferably, we should just be summarizing other biographical sources, but a detailed sketch in a reliable source would probably be enough, assuming that it presented significant coverage (more than the Boston Globe story that broke this, IMO). If we can't write that article given the sourcing, we should merge the content elsewhere. If we can, we should keep this. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I hear what your saying and I think we can. Now that her nephew is argubly the most powerful man in the world there likely will be more stories coming. -- Banjeboi 11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi and Francium12. Like Tito the Builder, this individual is the subject of substantial media attention; enough to warrent an article of its own. Also similiarly, the recent creation of the article is not a reason for deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obvious notability. In the annals of history it is often just one event in a person's life that makes them especially notable for posterity. The suspiciously timed "exposure" of this woman's immigration status alone merits her role in both the current events of our time, as well as Amerian presidential and electoral history. Please resist the urge to merge all Obama family articles into the Obama family article . . . a fine enough piece that should link to the separate articles of the more notable family members. Here's to inclusionism!--Utahredrock (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be overstating the importance just a skosh. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with the Family of Barack Obama article as it seems that this is just another case of WP:ONEEVENT. Is this Allison Stokke case all over again? PS: There are also major BLP issues here because the Associated Press might've violated federal privacy law by reporting on this, according to the Washington Post today. [26]--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (changed my decision to a proposed move, see below)[reply]

Comment Please at least name what this supposed "one event" would be if you use it as an argument. What is the "event" here?

Hobartimus (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The 'One event' is the report of her living without a green card or citizenship in the United States, other than that she was non notable as far as biographical information or notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia Thisglad (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with the "family" article, but consider recreating later if that better organizes content. Weak keep for now. First, notability is obvious (3,000 or so news articles) but for questions of "not news", "not inherited", recentivism, ~~and BLP.~~ Having a separate article would have to pass all those hurdles. I note of the +/- 3,000 news articles, the very first reported by google is October 29, 2008, four days ago. Every single article is about the nexus of: (1) her being an illegal alien plus (2) her being a relative of Barack Obama. Even if we accept that circumstances have made her a notable person, I do not think it is possible at this time to create a neutral, BLP-honoring, informative article about her as a human being. I do not think a terribly significant or helpful encyclopedic article can be created about her from the relevant sources. There is certainly some information that could be included in the campaign article(s) and the "family" article, just nothing about her apart from those issues. Moreover, all the material here is a duplicate of the "Family" article. That does not weigh one way or another - either it could be here in its own article or it could be merged. But the fact that there's only 2-4 paragraphs of useful info on her means she will fit neatly into the family article as a matter of organization. If Obama should be elected this is likely to be an ongoing issue, and even if he is not it could be.... so why not revisit this in a few weeks or months, and consider the question then. If her immigration status and her life becomes an ongoing saga that captures the public interest, write about her at that time. If this is just a flash in the pan, no point having an article. Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been substantially rewritten since it was nominated, and in my opinion the article as rewritten satisfies the BLP concerns in all ways except making public the life of a quiet private citizen - every newspaper in the country is doing so too, but we have to decide whether Wikipedia should participate in that. At any rate, I think the article is neutral, fair, and well sourced at this point, even if what is happening to her is not necessarily going to be fair or neutral. In the coming days and weeks, as a relative of the President who is caught up in the immigration process, it is very likely that she will continue to be in the news and her case will be an ongoing matter of public interest until it is resolved. We don't know that yet, but it would be undue effort to go through the trouble to merge now, only to recreate the article later. Ideally we should just let this article sit until then, and reconsider at that time whether her notability independent of the President-elect and his campaign is proven or not. Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(note: the below exchange occurred before I changed my !vote)

Comment Wikidemon failed to mention above that he deleted large amounts of content from an article under Afd, in a way that would change the effect of all "merge" votes. He did this minutes after posting his above vote. He first voted to merge the content then he deleted large parts of the content he just voted to merge a few minutes ago. You can see the content of the article, at the time he voted to merge [27]. Note that the article at that time had 19 sources. He then proceeded to delete about 3000 bytes worth of content about 30% of the article without discussing it on the talk page first [28]. He did this in an article flagged for Afd and flagged for rescue meaning users should expand the article to show notability of the topic. After Wikidemon's deletions the article just has 11 sources down from 19. All participants of the Afd should be aware of this undiscussed massive deletion of sourced content it is at the level of blanking with 30% of the article. Wikidemon's choice to do this blanking without noting it here to participants of the Afd is very concerning. If only two people like him show up that would leave us with only 10% of the original article and would make the Afd process as a whole meaningless. Hobartimus (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The borderline personal attack is out of line. I did not mention deleting the material because I had not done so at the time I posted my response. The deletion does not affect my response one way or another. The material is inappropriate and should not be in an article about a living person who is not a public figure - merged or not, period. It is disputed information that I and others had contested before - this should not be re-inserted without consensus in any event. Onyango's sudden notoriety is a minor election year ploy to get at Barack Obama. The election is in two days now, and this AfD is scheduled to go one day beyond that. Time does not stop for AfDs. Being under AfD does not trump our encyclopedic standards to keep out material that is unencyclopedic, POV, and in part a BLP violation. Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" Onyango's sudden notoriety is a minor election year ploy to get at Barack Obama." do you accuse the Associated Press LA times The New York Times and other renowned news organizations some of them who endorsed Obama that they reported on the story (provided publicity, coverage to it) to "get at" Obama? Along them and the 3000 articles in gnews only, the story was reported world-wide including large coverage in the UK and several other countries. Did all these news organizations (all of the information came from them, nothing was unsourced) want to "get at" Obama? Or it's not about Obama but doing their job? If there is a story, they report on it that's what they do, is it not? (as a side note, content that was deleted by you included deleting The New York Times as a reference and all content that was sourced to it. The New York Times hardly wants to disparage or "get at" Obama as they endorsed him for president) Hobartimus (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not accuse these papers. They report political theatrics when it occurs, and as warranted the underlying circumstances after partisan accusations are made. They, like all papers, are also eager to print illegally leaked information if it is a good scoop. None of that means it is their ploy, they just report on it. The claim itself is poorly sourced - an anonymous government official tells the Associated Press X, and other papers cannot confirm it, so they simply relay that the AP reported X. None of that makes X reliably sourced - we have sources only for the fact that AP reported that anonymous sources said X. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear cut case of WP:INHERITED --T-rex 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me to be a clear cut case of WP:GNG - or should we delete the Michelle Obama article too, as she would not be notable had it not been for her relationship to Obama either? the skomorokh 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually she is notable enough for inclusion into wikipedia independent of her relation to Barack Obama, maybe not a few years ago, but you can even compare Michelle Obamas article to this one up for deletion, other than the report of her living without a green card there was 0 notability or news coverage of Zeituni Onyango just a week ago Thisglad (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Family of Barack Obama per WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM. Khoi khoi 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're waaay past BLP1E with now 3000 news articles. Also she stated in a recent interview she would talk with reporters after the election. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as to the Michelle Obama comparisson, when Auntie Zeituni gives a speech at the DNC and a zillion and one major media interviews, then that standard can apply.
- The point is that whether or not a subject meets the notability requirements is independent of whether or not they got to be famous through connection to another subject. Onyango is notable because she has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, a fact your comment does not address. Sincerely, the skomorokh 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator (Me!) believes rationale above no longer applies, due expansion in bio (as of Nov. 3rd) primarily concerning Aunt Zeituni's immigration controversy. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Family of Barack Obama. This is nothing more than a short-term news story about a non-notable person, and it will be completely irrelevant on November 5. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article doesn't make Zeituni Onyango a notable person. My original opinion stands. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin please note that at Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango a merge template has been replaced pointing here to encourage a merge discussion. I personally find this a bit pointy but think it may account for some of the comments above. -- Banjeboi 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to family of, or campaign 2008. This person should not have a bio article, since she's not notable. My second choice would be delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of her becoming a person of public interest due to her "outing" by persons as yet unknown, Zeituni Onyango certainly merits a page.Mauidude (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (moved from article talkpage). -- Banjeboi 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Family of Barack Obama. This information is obviously well-sourced and needs a place, but I don't think she's done enough to be notable independently, hence the call to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or merge and redirect. The article has expanded quite a bit since the previous merge. I'd be inclined to rename it Zeituni Onyango immigration controversy or something similar, in light of WP:BIO1E. Her mention in Obama's book is farily trivial. The bulk of this article is about her immigration case, including the investigation of the leak ("Legality regarding release of information" section), which just started, so including all this in Family of Barack Obama would be a bit odd. I don't like to speculate, but since Obama won the election, I think we haven't heard the last word in the investigation, so covering the event in a separate article is not outlandish. Compare with Ashley Todd mugging hoax. VG ☎ 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment i was asked to take a second look by benji. I've done so. It remains a very, very poor article. This woman remains a minor figure of passing relevance who's life history, running to over 50 lines (i just eyeballed it and am being conservative, it could be more) doest not belong here. The information should be distilled to about 200 words tops and then merged with either the obama family story or whatever the link is for the 2008 US presidential election.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed move to a new title reflecting the event for which Onyango was notable--her immigration status controversy. As WP:BLP1E suggests: "Cover the event, not the person." Is she notable for her work with East African Breweries also? Then prove it. Otherwise, the only coverage she has beyond the immigration is very scant at best.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's misapplying BLP, her case is about her and she was the focus of several thousand news articles not her asylum case. That could change bu the article is actually more in the spirit of humanity showing who she is and how her case has evolved. Also she has stated she will talk after the elections so there's little doubt more biographical information will come. I didn't, for instance, add that she was known to be quite a dancer although that sort of fluff could be helpful too. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too was asked to revisit this page. I don't know what standard someone could use to call this a bad article. It is well sourced and at least reasonably well written. It is noteworthy--the aunt of our President-elect is caught up in the ridiculous immigration laws or lack thereof of the U.S. This is an important article. Cheers to those who have worked on it. Let's not try to merge it with some master Obama family article. That very un-Wiki like movement represents an odd urge among some editors. If the Obama family article survives it would be best to link to the stand alone articles like this one.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had vacillated in my earlier comment between "keep" and "merge". The "merge" seems consistent with the handling of some other Obama relatives (but that handling was not necessarily my first preference, just consensus I recognized). However, this article has been rewritten, strengthened, expanded, and made more encyclopedic. As currently written, I think it is a clear "keep", possibly even a "strong keep". Onyango has received enough press to become independently notable, notwithstanding the fact this press was originally motivated by a familiar connection... it makes it to the "Billy Carter Rule" :-). LotLE×talk 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What "press coverage"?? How can you compare this poor old woman to Billy Carter? She gives no interviews, stays away from the press (indeed I believe they have been unable to photograph her) and is famous ONLY because it is a curious anomaly the President-elect has an illegal alien aunt! The press can write ad nauseum about her, digging up whatever details they can on this poor woman and the steps the government has taken to avoid any bias in the case but that DOES NOT make her worthy of either inclusion nor does it pass WP:BLP. What has she personally done to warrant inclusion? -Nard 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please more looking into the issue before comment ("indeed I believe they have been unable to photograph her") It took me literaly 10 seconds to find an article with a picture (at the very top on Google News) [29] it's from the BBC. Hobartimus (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her asylum case is quickly becoming one of the most well-known. With her nephew now the next president of the US the attention will only increase. -- Banjeboi 11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is illustrated by press coverage; too much content to merge. Everyking (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - filelake shoe 16:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PKR.com[edit]

This article sounds like an advertisement... Jayson (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Doesn't look globally notable to me. Merge anything encyclopedic (if it even exists) to the website owners article page. The owner is a notable figure being an OBE but the article certainly doesn't contain encyclopedic content at present. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not particularly stunning in its current form, but the fact (1) it is the first poker site to offer multiplayer poker in 3D is notable in my opinion. Also, I did a cursory comparison with other major poker sites and they rank much better than everestpoker.net and pokerstars.net, and slightly better than Pokerstars.com when it comes to (2) visitor numbers (according to Alexa.com). They also (3) won an award at the 2008 eGaming Review Awards. I took that from the PKR.com site, but we obviously would need to reference the award site or a newspaper for that fact. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and add sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your're both sure something encyclopedic can come of it. It looks like an advert to me. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get the general gist of what you're saying, but please reword anyway, because what you said above is ungrammatical. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs fixing to get this out of WP:SPAM, but savable. See Google News hits and a mention in a book. Notable enough for me. DARTH PANDA ^duel 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the GNews hits look like recycled press releases that are posted to poker-related websites which do not to the best of my knowledge have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. The mention of this site in the book "Bigger Deal" is literally one sentence out of a 291-page manuscript. This is the definition of a trivial mention and may in no way be considered an indicator of notability. There is nothing here to support the existence of this article. Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a copyedit is not grounds for deletion, other arguments simply don't hold up upon inspection. Wily D 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator failed to provide a policy-based reason for the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India[edit]

This article only cites one source I find it unimportant and unless the creator can show otherwise, I propose this article be deleted. Jayson (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination. You can't expect the creator to read your mind and find out what kind of sources you are looking for if you don't ask them. First try to talk this out with the page creator, you can always nominate for deletion when it fails. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Mgm. Suggesting withdrawal of nomination. DARTH PANDA ^duel 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sklar[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Akamad (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. A Google News archive search returns few results related to this individual. The article says he is related to many notable musical relative, such as Walter Hautzig, but notability is not inherited. He has released albums but they have not won any notable awards or charted. Article asserts no notability at all and might be an A7 candidate. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO. No reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Four references cited; three are about other things/people and don't mention him. The fourth establishes that he played once and once only on an internet radio station.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We don't delete articles about towns with 30,000+ people. Ever. JBsupreme (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manendragarh[edit]

It has very little importance, and is poorly written. Jayson (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: its a city and municipality as surveyed in Indian Census 2001. Just because some IP users added unsourced materials, it does not follow that the article should be deleted. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete settlements here, especially those with 30,000+ people in them. As Indian town/village stubs go, this is in better shape than most. Anyhow, bad writing calls for cleanup, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grounds for deletion is notability not poorly written. A census town in India is notable. I fail to see how you conclude that a town of 30,000 to be of little importance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book[edit]

Unremarkable book. Yes, reviews were published; reviews are published about tens and tens of thousands of books every year. There is nothing to indicate that this book is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'. [ roux ] [x] 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability guideline for books is WP:BK, not an editors opinion of what is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'. This book clearly has multiple reliable source reviews (Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Book Links and School Library Journal) that allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary so it passes WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. While I would consider a review by Publishers Weekly more reliable than others, I don't agree that reviews constitute non-trivial coverage. Reviews tell the readers what the basic plot of the book is and then share the opinion of the reviewer. They don't provide additional information like newspaper interviews with the author do for example. Exactly what new information do you think these reviews provide? The parts I can read state nothing new except naming the illustrator. Nothing about sales figures, public reception or anything like that. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not trivial because it is directly about the subject and not mentioned in passing like a list of books. Schuym1 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And WP:BK allows reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Reviews provide critical commentary that allow the article to grow beyond a simple plot summary. This is the fundamental part of WP:BK and this article provides references to those reviews. I have added a quote from the School Library Journal review to the article to provide more detail to the reception section.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BK, has multiple references including Publisher's Weekly. _David ^WS _(contribs) 12:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I also expanded the quote from Publishers Weekly to provide more critical commentary. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but ... Multiple reviews by reputable journals indicates notability to me - whatever my opinion of the book. But this is a very short article. I would prefer to make this a section in the article on the author, Remy Charlip, with the title redirected to the section. That way, someone looking for the title would get to the description & reviews, but someone interested in Remy Charlip would see more about his work without having to follow links. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with stubs. The article should stay the way it is because it is independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a link to the author's page on the article. I doubt that people would be to lazy to click on the link. Schuym1 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability established. Did the nom not read WP:ATD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - sources cited including reviews and the nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at least in terms of Wikipedia policy regarding the validity of reviews as viable sources. If the nom really feels this sort of source is not substantial enough, I recommend he or she push for policy change. 23skidoo (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep, technically it does meet WP:BK and by the noms claims that reviews alone do not establish notability, a large number of film, book, and television series articles would have to be deleted. That said, I can also see his point that this is not a very notable book. Four reviews, one of which is not even used only noted as having been done. If this were part of a series, I'd argue to merge it there, but as it is not, deletion isn't the right option. I do think Aymatth2 has a good idea, though, of merging it to the author article, as it seems there is very little else to say about this book other than what is there. No production/creation/conception type info, and only a handful of reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author article. There are a lot of magazines for book reviews (like School Library Journal, for example) and while they do contain "reviews", they are rather short, and, I would argue, what should be labeled as "trivial" for WP:BK. In my opinion, an article like this for every book reviewed in School Library Journal would be frankly quite ridiculous; I don't think that picture books or some children's books should have articles if they aren't notable and with significant reviews/references. I would be in favour of merging to the author article—that seems to me to be the best option. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:WAX argument should not be used. We are not talking about an "article like this for every book reviewed in School Library Journal". We are discussing one book. One article. If only metioned in a list, that would be trivial. To have multiple reviews concerned directly with this book, is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF as a reason. I'm saying that as an example of why reviews in publications like Booklist or School Library Journal are trivial. (However, I am also worried that this will set a dangerous precedent—I could go and create 200 stubs on minor books, easily, but they wouldn't be at all useful). Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most books don't get multiple reviews. You think that it's trivial, the nom thinks it's trivial, everyone else thinks it's not, which shows WP:NOTABILITY needs to be specific about what is considered trivial. Schuym1 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh... that's false. Most books that are published by a major publishing company will have brief reviews in several of the major literary journals. But for example School Library Journal, a monthly publication, has several hundred reviews in each publication—these are minor, very short, and trivial reviews. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Remy Charlip and create a section on the book. The author has written over 29 books, and I am not convinced that this one is particularly notable. The sources indicate simply that it exists, not that it is notable. WP:BK says of the sources: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" - the direct quotes from the reviews offer little beyond the plot summary that the main character is reading the same book we are reading. There is nothing within the article that exists, nor the direct quotes, to assert notability. This is an example of how to deal with the books of a prolific writer - each of the books within this detailed list would have received a considerable amount of reviews, yet it is accepted that it is the series itself that is notable, not the individual books. SilkTork *^YES! 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If only metioned in a list, that would be trivial. To have multiple reviews concerned directly with this book, is not. WP:GNG directs that a source MUST be considered in context to what is being asserted. The book meets notability per the guidelines. Your different interpretation would be most welcome at the notability noticeboard. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Accepted? It depends on who you ask. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, all the books in Harry Potter is notable so each book has a seperate article. Schuym1 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The GNG says that one can have an article, not that one must. I would certainly suggest that for most writers of works that are neither classic novels nor best sellers, that combination articles are the way to go. Comparison to Harry Potter are extreme--there are not many children's books as notable as those. This particular book is one of a primary school series--where authors typically write a very large number of titles--the best example of the genre is probable Dr. Seuss--and in his case, each of the books is notable. i would probably not want to go much further down the line than authors of similar stature for this level of material. We should not think it a question of notabiity, but rather inclusion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the comparison to Harry Potter is extreme but the real issue here is does the article meet WP:BK, if it does then the article should be left as it is. Why should we merge into the authors article just because its a children's book? The article has multiple reliable source reviews that provide sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. If it passes WP:BK then it is notable, regardless of its genre. --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't comparing the book to Harry Potter. I brought it up because an editor said that is accepted that series are notable, not the individual books. Schuym1 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature has been informed of this deletion discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Obviously the article can be kept, the book is (just) notable enough. But all the real information there could easily be worked into one sentence in the author biography. N p holmes (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with stubs. Schuym1 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has 4 reviews so it should stay the way it is. Schuym1 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N without difficulty. Arguments on why we should ignore the usual standards just don't cut the mustard. Wily D 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the article as csd-g7. Schuym1 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

considering t hat some of us think the article contents should be merge, I've removed the speedy tag--I don't think it rationally applies in this situation. Let someone close the afd. DGG (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge While both author and book articles meet the strict notability guidelines, it seems to me that the author article needs a lot more detail before there can be a real justification to spin out any of the books into separate articles. This has got nothing to do with whether it is a children's book or not - just that neither article has much substance. On the other hand, if both articles are a work in progress, then time should be allowed for them to be fully developed before declaring them suitable for either deletion or merging. --Plad2 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published reviews demonstrate notability, and it isn't a natural fit for the author's article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other editors said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it clearly meets the necessary requirements and has the potential to become a well-written and substantial article if someone would just put forth the effort. We decide whether to keep or delete articles based on their potential not their current state. Aurum ore (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice L. Lagarde[edit]

Non-notable BLP, unsourced and untouched since 2005. Medical administrator whose only claim to notability is co-chairing an apparently not very important New Orleans reconstruction commission. Sandstein 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact it's a biography of a living person (BLP) is only relevant to deletion if the article contains damaging information about the person, which is not the case here. The commision you're talking about has an article which is referenced with several reliable sources, which would make the organization notable. Being the co-chair of a notable organization makes someone notable. (It's only a co-chair thing because they want to balance out racial tension in the area). If you say the commision is apparently not very important, you should explain why you came to the conclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, is it not? Could you provide us with reliable sources covering Mr Lagarde in any depth? Sandstein 16:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google has plenty of info on him. I live in Melbourne, Australia, and I know about this guy. He's important. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost 100 Google News references. He's not just a member oft he Commission, he's co-chairman, according to the NY Times story. I would have some doubts about it if he were only a member, but the head of a notable organization can pretty much be assumed to be notable, as essentially all sources on the group will discuss him also. Perhaps we should explicitly amend not inherited to that effect. And there are two equally effective ways to harm Wikipedia while trying in good faith to improve it: one is to insert articles without proper sourcing, and the other is to delete articles without proper sourcing when the sourcing is easily obtainable. DGG (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP does not enter into it. DGG says it so much better than I ever could. However, the individual, his position with HCA, and his commission work are to enough to meet notability. Dloh cierekim 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree, there's no serious BLP concerns here, which make ignoring the usual notability standards a nonstarter. Wily D 15:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve induction[edit]

Unsourced stub on a fictional medical technique; untouched since 2005. Probably not notable for its use in fiction, and does not appear to exist in real life. Sandstein 08:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the induction of an action potential down a nerve is definitely a subject fit for inclusion in wikipedia. The Dune reference is just one particular application. It badly needs attention, though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there reliable sources covering the subject? Sandstein 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but all the ones that I know are based on paper. You don't generally find solid physiology textbooks on the Internet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it would be great if you could cite these books in the article and replace it with a brief, three-sentence stub definition of the topic based on them. We could keep the article then, of course. Sandstein 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Smells fishy. Someone might want to check with WP:WikiProject Neuroscience to see if such a concept even exists outside of Dune. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand. Ample sources exist to demonstrate that it's a verifiable scientific concept. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, they don't. I did that Google search before nominating this article, and it yields unrelated results such as an abstract including the phrase "... degenerating cat peripheral nerve: induction of Schwann ...". Could you please cite a specific reliable source covering this topic in adequate detail so that an article can be written about it? Sandstein 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Well, yes they do. At least if you bother to follow any of the links, that is. Like this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this news story from AAP. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - These sources all mention the phrase "nerve induction" once (or, in the case of the 1968 paper, a few times) but it remains opaque what "nerve induction" actually is, or even whether they're all talking about the same thing. A few scattered references are not a basis for an article. Sandstein 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The salient detail here is that the term "nerve induction" verifiably exists as a notable scientific/medical concept. Whether each of the sources above are talking about the same thing or different things is entirely beside the point. Articles frequently can and do discuss terminologies that posess variable meanings dependent on the context of their usage - and if that's the case here, so should this article. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Pubmed.com there were no article containing the string "nerve induction". Perhaps they meant neural induction instead. (I'm working from memory here, but I think that IS a valid concept). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think there'd be any difference between the terms 'nerve induction' and 'neural induction'. It's the concept that's important, not the terminology. Induction of nerve action potentials is done by physiologists (in research) and neurologists (in practice) all the time. There's a science behind it; there's established doctrine behind it. Maybe I'll write an article about it one day myself, but not today. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The topic may be viable but, per WP:V, we shouldn't have an article about it as long as we can't find any reliable sources covering it. You're of course free to rewrite the article at any time if it is now deleted. Sandstein 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you thinking of what is actually known as electrotherapy? Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Although, I guess electrotherapy is a specific application of neural induction. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neural induction appears to be something else entirely. I doubt that something with a nearly identical name would be used in the scientific community to mean something so radically different. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, neural induction appears to refer to fetal development of a nervous system (and probably needs an article). - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question As a fictional weapon, I don't remember that the mechanism was ever really specified, but if this is an analogue of Asimov';s neural whip, it could be merged/redirected there. As something real, "neural induction" should have an article. DGG (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Unless I am wrong (it has been a number of years since I read through the classics), neural whip refers to a non-lethal weapon, but this is a box. Although sci-fi methods for inducing pain without injury might be valid. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gom jabbar or somewhere else in the Duniverse unless real-world existence can be established (my searches indicate no, but I am not a biologist). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comment below and describe artificially evoked potentials in the sense of Galvanism (the bit with the electrically twitchy frog legs). A merge Signal transduction#Artificial (article is about neurons converting stimuli into electrical signals, not general transducers) would also work. The Duniverse sentence is adequately treated at Gom jabbar. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - look at these articles on the Net: [30], [31], [32]. All describe different methods of nerve induction. 'Nerve induction' is not jargon; it's just describing the concept. I don't see a semantic difference between 'nerve induction' and 'neural induction', or 'induction of a nerve action potential'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently says that it is about creating sensations by directly stimulating peripheral nerves, which seems like an expensive route for a haptic interface or possibly a brain computer interface. These articles are much more about research on how and why (electrically and chemically) neurons fire. The chemical aspects are treated by Neuromodulation and our family of neuron-related articles. Physical stimulation is covered by Electro Muscle Stimulation (though there may be more to say there). More complex systems exist for insects, where a roach's antennae are replaced by an electrostimulation box or a genegineered fruitfly is induced to jump with an IR pulse. Then there are cochlear implants and other neuroprosthetics, vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, &c. for applications of Electrotherapy. Having an article describing the basic ways to change the firing behavior of neurons other than through the stimuli they have evolved to detect seems worthwhile. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your example of vagus nerve stimulation neatly demonstrates a specific application of nerve induction. The article as it stands is about the Dune universe, and I don't see that the Dune application ought to take precedence over current scientific theories. Neuromodulation is not the same thing as neurotransmission, which is not the same thing as nerve induction. Electro muscle stimulation is a specific type of nerve induction (although the muscle may be directly stimulated as well). Nerve induction can also affect sensory nerves, autonomic nerves, and other efferent nerves. Neuroprosthetics generally sense nerve stimulus, rather than cause it. Deep brain stimulation is related but I guess 'nerve' refers to peripheral nerves, whereas the brain contains tracts and nuclei by definition. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is again central nervous system rather than peripheral nervous system.
  - I realise that to some extent my arguments in this AfD boil down to 'trust me, I'm a doctor', but this is an article for those with expertise. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except for the point about the difference between stimulation of peripheral vs. central nerves (which I am willing to concede), I think I agreed with you on at least the important points. I am not convinced that chemical and electrical inducement should be treated in the same article, but that is not an AfD matter. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP No justification for deletion nor policy is cited except for the belief of the nominator that the article isn't notable and the fictional reference is inappropriate. As has been demonstrated, it is. If the fictional elements are not appropriate then they should be removed. If the article is shitty it should be rewritten, but no policy is cited for the proposition that an article that is notable and is just not well supported should be deleted, and therefore it should be kept till such authority is brought to bear upon the discussion.--Δζ (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. borderline G3 per snow, unanimous apart from an apparent sock/meat farm and absoosutely nothing in Google apart from this discussion. StarM 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kippian Method[edit]

Note to all new editors: All entries on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. Several efforts by other editors failed to turn up evidence this technique exists, so if you are offended by the fact it is up for deletion, help us out and provide references we can use to confirm this article's content with. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you were directed here by family members, your boss, your friend or that person at KFC and told to vote keep; PLEASE DO NOT DO SO UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE "Kippian Method" IS NOTABLE ENOUGH. Doing so is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research about achieving success. The references cited in the article don't even mention the "Kippian Method". A Google search, Google Books search, and Google Scholar search return no results. Seems to be either a non-notable method, hoax, or something madeup in one day. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources the creator cited don't mention the method at all. Has hoax written all over it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the charitable way to put it is that this 'method' has not achieved widespread notability. The less charitable response would be to say that this was made up in school one day, or else is a joke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I actually think I have heard of this method, while taking economics, however none of the sources provided by the creator support the "Kippian Method". Livid125 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Livid125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - it's a hoax and the joker(s) below are all sockpuppets (not Mgm or Hobit).⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the "Kippian Method" and have found it very effective. I find myself less stressed and able to focus on my studies better. The "Kippian Method" has literally kept me from failing out of college. Ryovercash (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ryovercash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At the time of this writing, User:Ryovercash has only 5 edits, 3 of which are on this AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This method was widely discussed in my college level economics class, and was also a focus of time management seminars I have attended. As Ryovercash says, it's implementation in my life has greatly increased both my productivity and my level of happiness. Personally, I find it quite offensive that a helpful article of this nature is even being considered for deletion. I think some of the critics of the Kippian Method would do well to add it to their lives - they seem rather high strung. MYSTYNWA (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— MYSTYNWA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The "Kippian Method" was introduced to me when I arrived at college. Many college counselors discuss the issues students have regarding working harder and doing worse. It is important to be able to relax as much as possible and then do focused, small, intense periods of work. This maximizes efficiency and removes the distractions such as stress and exhaustion. It is much easier working when you know you won't be working for hours upon hours. I have applied the "Kippian Method" to my studies and have found that working is much easier and that I have fewer distractions. I procrastinate less, because I am able to break my work down into smaller chunks. I am able to only do the really necessary work and remove the tedious busy work that acts only as a distraction. The "Kippian Method" should be introduced to all high schools. I agree that the idea of deleting the "Kippian Method" is offensive. NickyTaylor (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — NickyTaylor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete- The professor of my ethics course recently attended a conference on studying habits where they extensively discussed the Kippian Method. She had been unaware of this theory beforehand, but was raving about it upon her return. She gave out handouts outlining the method's procedure and highly recommended that we consider applying it to our work regimen. Personally, I have benefited from it and I'm doing much better in my classes. I now have more leisure time, which helps me focus better when I'm actually doing work. If it were not for the Kippian Method I would probably not have the time to surf Wikipedia and approve the legitimacy of this article. I too find the assumption that this method doesn't exist to be extremely ludicrous and ill-informed. Babel Ra (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Babel Ra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do not Delete- While there seems to be a lack of legitimate sources for this article. I know it exists. I actually spent the better part of my afternoon looking for verifiable sources for this method as was shocked when I too could not find anything online. Its incredible that such a popular method does not seem to have any online recognition. Cunningway (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Cunningway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete as hoax. There is nothing anywhere on online that I can find. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- I'm a student at UNCC and know of several students at both my school and Davidson College that endorse the Kippian Method. I'm not sure how widely used this method is but I believe it is worthy of acknowledgment.

[[User:|Lukeworm]] (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Sledging (cricket)[edit]

Delete. The article is a collation of WP:OR and hearsay incidents that amount to WP:TRIVIA and, even where they are (apparently) verifiable, have highly dubious WP:N. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - those who live outside Australia and Britain probably don't realise how much of an issue this has been. Sledging has been the lead story on the news on many occasions. Cricketers have been suspended over racially-based sledges and this has been a big issue for sports in Australia. The article needs to be verified, admittedly (though we don't need all of those tags; the point has been made, guys). - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I live in Britain and support cricket. I also know several Australians who follow cricket. Nobody I know thinks of so-called "sledging" as anything more or less than competitors (in all sports) mouthing off in the heat of the moment. Your points are your own POV and you are exaggerating the topic by giving it the guise of an "issue". It is not an issue and certainly is not a "lead story", though the controversy between Singh and Symonds did receive some brief attention from the media. But any mention of even this incident should be restricted to their respective articles and/or the relevant tour/series article. Do we have an article about every argument that takes place in football when one player or manager badmouthes another? WP would exhaust its capacity!

I don't see anything about players/managers abusing each other in Category:Australian rules football culture where I'd have thought the "practice" was much more likely. Perhaps it just isn't notable enough to be included? Same should apply to cricket.

In any case, and more importantly, how do you justify "strong keep" for an article that flagrantly breaches WP:OR? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sledging is a notable part of the game. However, this article is a car-wreck - does it hold the record for the most cite tags?! Additional note to closing admin' It looks like all those tags were added by the nom after the AfD tag was added. This looks to me like forcing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to add weight to the deletion. It needs cleaning up, rather than deletion. I've added some refs for the Singh/Symonds affair. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So-called sledging is anything but "a notable part of the game". Sportsmen shouting abuse at each other occurs in virtually all sports and cricket is no different, so why is a common every game occurrence singled out for "notability" in cricket? As for additional tags placed "after the AfD tag", it is legitimate to update the article during the AfD not only to improve it but also to highlight what is wrong with it. In fact, the AfD and the cleanup tags were all inserted at the same time, although the article might have been saved a few times during the process. Your contention that I am trying to "add weight" is splitting hairs and making something out of nothing. The point is that the article is appalling and even you admit it needs cleaning up at least. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be salvaged and turned into a decent article. Needs a bit of research and work rather than a ridiculous number of maintenance tags.--Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please explain how a collation of WP:TRIVIA can be turned into a "decent article". Where is the research to take place that will verify all the dubious hearsay based on perceived stereotypes? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dubious information can and should be removed. The article as it stands is poor but it has potential to be improved using articles such as this, and there's plenty from a Google News search.--Michig (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very well known cricketing term, very widely used in the media. Easily meets both WP:V and WP:NOTE. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per User:Michellecrisp on your own talk page, you regularly add "Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE" to AfD topics without explaining how WP:NOTE is achieved. And like Richard Cavell you have conveniently ignored the overriding WP:OR issue here. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. Notable term and more than a dictdef. Needs cleanup and additional sources not deletion. Qwfp (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a fair comment but I would ask where you will find the sources given that the article is mostly original research based on hearsay? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, the issue is a significant one in cricket which has attracted a great deal of media coverage; I found these within a couple of minutes. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] While it's true^{[citation needed]} that the article could use a little tidying up,^{[citation needed]} plastering every clause^{[citation needed]} of every sentence^{[citation needed]} with a ^{[citation needed]} tag doesn't help the nominator's case at all.^{[citation needed]} Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So you are saying the article should be kept because you don't like the "cn" tags? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as clearly the consensus is going to be to keep but cleanup the article. Thanks to everyone who contributed although I disagree with some of your points and I think you have all overlooked the WP:OR issue here. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as G4, the old AfD close still applies So Why 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhpOrganisation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No sources or assertion of notability. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more to say, really. Barely any ghits to even comb through. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, if we look at the Google hits instead of just the news hits, they're unremarkable. Nothing to add. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Tagged with WP:G4. GNews and GBooks turn up no hits. See previous AfD. DARTH PANDA ^duel 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by myself. This is utterly unsalvageable and there is no probability whatsoever of this surviving AfD. It is also probably a copyright violation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army welfare[edit]

I don't know what to make of this, it looks like it was copied out of an army (not sure which country) benefit guide or policy manual. My first thought was that this might be a copyvio, Google didn't come up with anything either confirming this or giving any hint as to what it might be.Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete as a, uh, complete mess. Agreed that it's probably a copyvio. I think the Indian army, btw. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't make heads nor tails of this stuff. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook. None of this is salvageable. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars with automatic seat belts[edit]

I don't see what use this list serves. It is inherently going to be out of date very quickly, and it answers a piece of incredibly minor trivia. [ roux ] [x] 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not kbb.com Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the automatic seat belt may be a notable technology, this does seem a completely trivial and unmaintainable thing to list articles by. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly trivial, not worth maintaining even if it were maintainable! JBsupreme (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial list which in time would grow to be unmaintainable. If someone can figure out what the first car was to use the technology, that could be in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW anyone? --Numyht (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We want to know just which cars have used automatic seatbelts between 1975 and 1996. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BTW, the first car with an automatic seat belt was the 1975 Volkswagen Rabbit. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually this list could serve an important purpose: auto insurance. Many insurers give a discount for cars that have a "passive restraint" or automatic seat belt. I agree though that the list is incomplete and unmaintainable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you imagine if people, or worse yet, insurance companies, were relying on this list (or any other Wikipedia article) for insurance purposes..? Shudder. JBsupreme (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, yes I could. 71.61.220.126 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: What if we put the years automatic seat belts were used for the car by the name of the car that used them? --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tankard (band). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Geremia[edit]

What I know about German singers could fit in a thimble, but this guy doesn't seem to deserve a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tankard (band). Same deal here, but if he's not known for something else, anything else, then the article can't properly be any more informative than his listing in the band's article. With a quick look on google, I didn't notice anything else that might satisfy that. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tankard (band). Because the article doesn't say anyting about the person outside the band. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been asked to explain why I nominated this article for Afd, rather than being WP:BOLD. I did so because my knowledge in this area is infinitesimally, microscopically tiny; better safe than sorry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul#Sound money. The history is not deleted if someone wants to merge some of it. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act[edit]

Proposed U.S. federal legislation for which WP:RS coverage is lacking. Written and introduced by Ron Paul in multiple congresses, sent to committee and not heard from again. Restored from a CSD#G5 deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul#sound money. Pouring through ghits, while I see activity on blogs and other unreliable sites, I can't find any reliable sources that actually went and reported on it. A topic does not become notable merely by being uttered by a notable individual, and if there is nothing to say about it that wasn't uttered by Paul himself, then an external link to the bill is sufficient. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources seem to be available. here, www.naturalnews.com/024486.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} here], here and here. SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those are reliable sources. In order:

The govtrack site is nothing more than a host for the text of the bill itself. It contains zero commentary on it.
Natural news, while it may appear to be a news source, is actually promoting the bill, if you read the last section.
Connietalk is also promoting the bill.
Opencongress, like govtrack, is just hosting the text of the bill, but also provides links to blog coverage. From that website, actually, "We are not currently finding any news articles on this topic..."'

Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it that the original link to loc.gov the website of The Library of Congress, the de facto national library of the United States is somehow not a reliable source? SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Databases/trackers can satisfy WP:V but not WP:Notability. Reliable source coverage needs to be non-trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N requires independent coverage of the issue. the LOC text of the bill or a copy of the federal register don't count. We don't need articles on every bit of legislation that Ron Paul has introduced, not least of all the ones that have 0% chance of passing. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [39] is a (biased) RS here. I also think that the naturalnews article counts. Sure it's an editorial, but that doesn't mean it can't be an RS. It's a horrible idea that won't happen, but that doesn't mean it's not notable Hobit (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. That it (barely) meets WP:N is great and all, but it's got a good home there. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; merge or redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nominator). Merge/Redirect sounds good to me. The bill is not notable on its own, but it has a place to go. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Tourister[edit]

Lacks notability, it's just a suitcase brand subsumed by another company. References notice since Jan 2007. Kickstart70TC 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brand that had a famous commercial involving a gorilla putting the company's luggage through heavy abuse in a controlled environment. Merged brands do not lose notability, and this can be expanded easily with sources. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question...why would a single "famous" commercial confer notability? In any case, that commercial is talked about under the Samsonite page...why not just merge this into that? --Kickstart70TC 06:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Tourister has more going for it than that, and it wasn't just one commercial. The suitcase and the gorilla campaign has extensive WP:RS coverage in books and newspapers going back to the 1970s. As for merging, this has potential for expansion and it is a more famous (and sometimes more notorious) brand than Samsonite ever was. • Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous brand. Teh commercial is just part of it. The question of whether to merge the articles can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very well known brand with an amazingly memorable ad. The company has been around since the 1930s, according to this, which could be used to expand the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you three decide on keeping the article, yet it still is a one-line article which is very stubby, why don't you expand it? Easier said than done. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest some patience? Constructive editing takes time and cleanup is not driven by deadlines. I am looking up sources now. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above and abundant available WP:RS ([40], [41], [42]). Aside from the gorilla campaign, American Tourister luggage was one of the cues used in law enforcement's infamous "drug courier profile".([43], Florida v. Royer) This is an established brand that can easily pass WP:PRODUCT. • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Easily meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pileon above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masuran[edit]

Concerns with this band are notability and verifiability. They have released one album "Elephant Rocks", but the album hasn't received much coverage as seen in this Google search and this Google News Archive search. This album hasn't charted and the band hasn't released any other albums other than this one. Speedy was placed by Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs); declined by Elonka (talk · contribs); and later re-added by Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs) so I'm bringing this article to AfD to see if there is a consensus to delete. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Sorry if I haven't given my own reason for it to be deleted, but

I've done a Google search on the ban itself. The first result reutrned a blog about computers quoting 'Mark Shuttleworth', not one of the members of the band. The official website returned a nonsensical website with no info, but there was a Masuran link at the bottom, I clicked through, but saw a blog stating it was a 'no longer-functioning' band. Other results were blogs and social networking websites.
The article was an exact copy of the blog in most parts, and no references have been listed. And none of the external links gave much info.
No entries about the band in Google news.
The article is not encyclopedic, in tone and layout and has hints of vanity, written as fancruft and is a hoax.
So per nom with you, Cunard, the creator is a newbie whose name is exatly one of the members of the band, so he is targeting Wikipedia because it is a 'popular' site, thinking it is a blog or a social networking site. His only 3 edits were to this article and was misusing Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Not notable, so that's why the band broke up. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reviews are none too inspiring: a zine, a website that is trying to sell their work, and a magazine we don't have an article on (while certainly not proof the magazine is unreliable, it's also not inspiring). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC, not to mention what looks like obvious violation of WP:COI. Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violation of MUSIC, conflict of interest and Fancruft Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not so much fancruft as COI-cruft. At least fancruft means you've got fans. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. I can find facebook, myspcae and other bios on the band. Can not find anything that would fit criteria one of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" which says It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.. I did try to check for the cited reviews in the article but could only find links to the bands bio that quotes the "Punk Planet" review. The "Cd Baby" "review" I can not find. Only the listing with bio and how to purchase the mp3. Tempter Magazine does not seem to exist anymore, at least online. However even if these reviews were easily found they would still not equal "multiple non-trivial published works" about the "subject" of the article in question, which is the band Masuran and not their album. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Villages are inherently notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surajpura[edit]

Shows no context or notability, unsalvageably badly written, if anything should be merged into the article dealing with that region. [ roux ] [x] 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the standard for such locations. Yes, it needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. --Kickstart70TC 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My word... hello fellow MeFite! I dunno.. I don't believe that all geolocs are inherently notable. Kill it and let it be recreated. [ roux ] [x] 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spam, that website isn't notable anyway, and if that's a point you're trying to make, no one understands it and you're wasting our time. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon? I'm not spamming, the website is notable, and I'm not trying to make a point. I was just greeting someone I happen to know from elsewhere. [ roux ] [x] 07:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another article about India that's below substandard in quality, but the Rohtas district has a population of 2.4m, and the first of the "great people" listed in the article is apparently a great literary figure from Surajpura.[44] Somno (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand, per all towns, cities, villages etc. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Small but acceptable geostub with scope for expansion.--Michig (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far from being unsalvagable, it's already been tidied up. And real geographical places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierazon[edit]

Non-notable software. Minor lulz for the article creator adding a "this article may not meet the general notability guideline" tag. Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been suggested for deletion due to being about "non-notable software". Currently, there are articles about Sterling, Fractint, Apophysis and Fractint. According to the most authoritative fractal census I have seen, Tierazon is the 4th most popular fractal generating program, more popular than Apophysis and Sterling. Please see: http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/Tried-Use_Counts.html. I suggest that this be put to consensus - let those wikipedians who are knowledgeable about fractals decide on this matter. I have made about 14,000 fractals and used about 20 different fractal generators and Tierazon is, in my humble opinion, the best of these. Soler97 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment - Soler97, please indicate at the beginning of your comment, in bold, whether you want the article to be kept, deleted, or is it a comment? And are you spamming? Looks to me that you are, because I saw your talk page, you've got no user page, and you've created this article. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you say that I am spamming. What difference would it make whether I have a user page or not? Soler97 (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith; a registered user is free to create an article regardless of whether they have a userpage. :) Somno (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find any coverage in reliable sources that shows this software meets notability criteria. Might be great software, but that doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Somno (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ad-like and written like it's a substitute for the product's original documentation. Only links are to the maker's page and the installation instructions (they have no info about the actual product) - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "they have no info about the actual product". Soler97 (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being blind, rude and ignorant before, but you should have provided more links in the article, I've done a Google search. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, but if you found some links that are useful please let me know about them. Soler97 (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia:Notability (software): Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). The article does not establish notability according to that guideline, nor does it fit the exceptions outlined on that page. Of course, if those sources exist and are added before this discussion ends, I can't see why this article couldn't be kept.TheRingess (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference to Tierazon in a German book called "Leben und Tod durch Zufall und Seele" By Steffen Grimm viz "82 Solche Bilder mit 16 Millionen Farben lassen sich zB mit dem Computerprogramm Tierazon erstellen. Das Programm ist im Internet verfügbar. " I think it is referring to images made by Tierazon.

I also found this: http://math.unipa.it/~grim/cieaem/cieaem57_codetta.pdf

Soler97 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom: If you want knowledgeable people to take a look this needs to be put to some mathematicians. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no clear evidence of notability (e.g. Google Scholar, Google News all dates, Google Books). I don't think one footnote in a book in German and one mention in a table in a conference paper is enough. By contrast Apophysis seems to have generated at least a bit more scholarly interest (Google Scholar "Apophysis fractal"; some hits are not about the software but several clearly are). (Sterling is too common a word / name for Google to be of much use). All these can be mentioned at Fractal generating software though, which could usefully be expanded to compare and contrast them, perhaps in a table, and could include one external link per program. Qwfp (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Tierazon was equal 5th among the programs used in the last FAME fractal competition, which had 700 entries: http://www.wack.ch/fame/afc3/kodgal.html Soler97 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read Wikipedia:Notability (software)TheRingess (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the guidelines, which apparently no longer reflect consensus. It seems to me that if fractal generating software is worth an article in wikipedia then the most important examples of the genre are also worth documenting. Am I wrong? Soler97 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if said software can pass the notability guidelines.Ironholds (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I were looking for a software program to generate Fractals then I would definitely consider Tierazon. I believe, that the information about this program is important, relevant and should be kept. If this article was to be deleted then most other software referenced under 'Fractal generating software' should be deleted as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Conanth (talk • contribs)
Delete. WP:SPAM. Whether a product deserved plaudits is not our business; we are not Consumer Reports. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read 'Fractal generating software'. Are you prepared to delete all the other referenced software as well?

If necessary; but I don't see why it should be; the others are passable, if trivial stubs, which don't read like sales brochures; merging all of them in would be another reasonable solution. (Apophysis has minor problems; but is this due to Soler97's recent tweaking?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I had a look at google keywords and found that Tierazon had an average search volume of 1,600 compared to fractint's 1,000. Yet fractint is obviously an important program. https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal Soler97 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you type the phrase Tierazon Fractal into Google's main search you get over 18000 hits. This seems like it is notable. I don't understand what google adwords has to do with anything. The number of Google hits may not be part of Wikipedia's guidelines but common sense says that it should be. In today's electronic world of the internet there will be many things that are obviously notable but don't appear much in printed publications. Delaszk (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that google adwords is highly relevant, as it tells you what is the frequency of usage of any search string. How many hits you get on a string is one measure of its relevance, how many people use that string is perhaps an even better one. Soler97 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way I look at it, and this is just my opinion and perhaps does not reflect consensus, is that a high google hit count is a necessary condition to determine notability of a piece of software, but is not a sufficient condition to guarantee notability. I'm not going to write a lengthy explanation of why I believe that, it just seems like common sense to me. I understand that there may be other pieces of software that have articles but don't meet the notability guidelines, but the disposition of those articles should be a separate discussion. Peace out.TheRingess (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Columbia Asia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Asia Medical Center - Puchong[edit]

fails WP:ORG, should only be really listed in Columbia Asia. Needs significant third party coverage to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sourced article about large, verifiable medical institution serving a v large population catchment. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serving a large catchment is not a criteria for notability, secondly this is a private hospital and not the main public public hospital serving the area. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you'd actually researched the subject prior to starting this AfD you would have discovered that as there is no government hospital in the Puchong district, this institution is in fact the only hospital available to the 300,000 people who live there. You would also have discovered that there are any number of citable sources available on the subject, thereby establishing that the article subject complies with WP:ORG, WP:NOTE and WP:V. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed with your sudden interest in Malaysian hospitals. your google search only proves that a public hospital does not exist in Puchong, it does not prove meeting WP:ORG. A Google news search reveals nothing. A web search reveals mainly job ads for the medical centre and hardly any coverage. Fails WP:ORG on these 2 counts. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the main public hospital serving Puchong is the University Malaya Medical Centre, Puchong is in Petaling district where the hospital is located http://www.ummc.edu.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=912&Itemid=1229. Your claim of "this institution is in fact the only hospital available to the 300,000 people who live there" is wrong, all these people can visit University Malaya Medical Centre, So whilst there is not a public hospital in Puchong there is a major one in the district where Puchong is located. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into the article for the company & rewrite that main article so it isn't so much like an advertisement. 06:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge The reference in the article doesn't explicitly mention the Puchong hospital, just that Columbia Asia is opening some new hospitals. Columbia Asia isn't big enough to warrant spin-off articles yet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and Merge as even the nom indicates, why are we at AfD? TravellingCari 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Columbia Asia. First of all, it needs to be noted that private hospitals have a significantly more important role in Malaysia than, for example, in the UK (I can't speak for Oz}, and should not be devalued because of being private. Having said that, I fully agree with TravellingCari that this is an example of an unnecessary AfD - such obvious merges should be dealt with by mergeto/mergefrom tags. TerriersFan (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Columbia Asia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Asia Hospital - Taiping[edit]

fails WP:ORG, should only be really listed in Columbia Asia. Needs significant third party coverage to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sourced article about large, verifiable medical institution. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this hospital does not have significant coverage. It's only 1 article that proves its existence not its notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. DGG (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The reference in the article doesn't explicitly mention the Taiping hospital, just that Columbia Asia is opening some new hospitals. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and Merge as even the nom indicates, why are we at AfD? TravellingCari 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Columbia Asia. First of all, it needs to be noted that private hospitals have a significantly more important role in Malaysia than, for example, in the UK (I can't speak for Oz}, and should not be devalued because of being private. Having said that, I fully agree with TravellingCari that this is an example of an unnecessary AfD - such obvious merges should be dealt with by mergeto/mergefrom tags. TerriersFan (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G10) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin's law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Palin's law

Non notable neologism; hasn't been picked up in mainstream sources yet (as of 11/01/08). RJaguar3 | u | t 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy Delete - Attack aimed at a presidential candidate and idle chat from a non-notable forum site.

The user who made the article said on the talk page: ' I apologize to for it being rather crappy, this is my first article and any help creating it would be appreciated. I will be working on it for a good portion of ton... ' Firstly, we DON'T take 'crappy' pages, and this guy hasn't read policy. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as it gains notability (likely never). --Kickstart70TC 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 (attack). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Weller/First Into Nagasaki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Weller/First Into Nagasaki

Essay —G716 <^T·_C> 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, and non notable person; fails WP:BIO in basic criteria. Also appears to contain original research. ThePointblank (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete plus it sounds like a slam article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is certainly much too long for what it is. "Conditions in Nagasaki in 1945" immediately after the bombing would make an encyclopaedic article (if it does not exist already). The observations of George Weller might well be a major source for that. IN other words the present article might be pruned down to a fraction of its length and moved to a Nagasaki-related title, but the article in its present form CANNOT be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the actual title of the article should be simply First into Nagasaki -- George Weller is a pulitzer-prize winning author & this is one of his major books, published many years after the events. . For the importance of the book, prevented from publication by US censorship, and the manuscript lost for decades, then published in the Daily Mainichi in Japan &* subsequently as a book, see the links at the end of the article on the author -- including The Guardian, [45], which published extensive extracts from the book, BBC News published a very full review with photographs as [46] . And other reviews of the book, all from google News-- NPR, Times, MSNBC, and 15 others from Google News alone. Librarians like me have long despaired that people are unwilling to look beyond Google for references, but all this was in Googe News--are people here unwilling to do even that? What point is our insistence on V if people are willing to comment on notability without even attempting to look for sources at all? The article of course needs some editing, to emphasize the material from the reviews. this is one time where the author did it right. She put the references into the main article on the author . another editor split it, and did not copy the relevant references. (the author has obvious COI, but the man is unquestionably notable from the prize, and the book from the reviews. She did not write the article very well, as is common with COI, but she did include the key references.) DGG (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom per DGG—G716 <^T·_C> 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Barclay[edit]

This article is about an artist who claims to have received a scholarship from the National New Media Art Award and has amended that site to say so, but there is no independent evidence for this claim or the claim that she has "performed and published across Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada and India and she has been the recipient of numerous awards and scholarships." Grahame (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards only seem to have been due for announcement on October 31, but in any case winning a scholarship doesn't make you notable, nor does anything else referenced in the article. She is only 23, so it's early days, but is NN now. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. And I don't like the COI aroma. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, due to third party media coverage here and here. Maybe just falls over the WP:N line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Johnbod. freshacconci talktalk 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge the list of books only to Rashid Khalidi. Sandstein 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi bibliography[edit]

Rashid Khalidi is a somewhat notable academic. He has published several books, which may or may not be notable in and of themselves, all of which are mentioned in the Rashid Khalidi main article. This list, in addition to listing all of the aforementioned books, contains what looks like the entire publication history of the professor, including every non-notable article he has ever published in journals, conferences etc.. There is nothing remotely notable about any of these, and Wikipedia is not MySpace - not a place for an academic to put his publishing resume on line. I have previously prod'ed it, and another editor agreed with the proposal. The creator of the article removed the prod notice, with the rationale that we have a category - Category:Bibliographies by author - which contains numerous Bibliographical lists. It will be noted that the vast majority of the articles in that list are of well known writers - authors of fiction, poets etc, such as Isaac Asimov, Enid Blyton or Graham Greene, not everyday academics. NoCal100 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator: upon reading this, I was originally opposed to the nomination because I'd seen other similar articles; but I understand and agree with the idea that this really isn't that significant for someone who isn't known primarily as a writer. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the books - Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Such articles are justified only for major writers. some particularly notable academics--the really famous ones -- would qualify, but normally we list just the published books or the 4 or 5 most cited or otherwise noteworthy articles (for fields in which they, not the books, are noteworthy.) I am not sure where the cutoff is , but it certainly is far above this, both in number of books and importance. I don't think we'd ever go as far as to list unpublished work and conference papers, as this article actually does. Well, maybe for Einstein or Darwin. There is nothing here to redirect or merge, as his books are already in the main article. The insistence on this calls for a NPOV and PEACOCK check of the main article on him. I see a few other dubious articles in that category, and I will propose merging or deleting them. I can also think of a few dozen scientist as where such a list would be appropriate to make. Not him. I think the general rule of one person one article would apply to 99% of the bios in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation to me. If he's notable enough to have a standalone article (and he is), then information like this is of potential value to someone interested in his work. Due to the length, it makes sense to break it out into a separate list like this, rather than leaving it within his main article. When I hear that we don't have full bibliographies for most writers, that just makes me think that we need more bibliography articles, not fewer. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:NOT#PAPER says is "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." The very first of these five pillars says "Wikipedia is not a vanity press" - and links vanity press to WP:NOTABILITY. Can you say what is notable about an unpublished conference paper or public lecture from 1982? In other words, which reliable sources that are independent of the subject provided significant coverage of such papers or lectures, in a way that would satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? NoCal100 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unpublished stuff probably shouldn't be included if it can't be cited (per WP:V) - but the unpublished stuff is only a small part of the bibliography. And I have no doubt that there are other scholarly works citing the published papers and articles that make up the verifiable portion of the bibliography, so your argument is invalid when applied to those works (which, as I mentioned earlier, make up the majority of the list under discussion). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here are thirteen citations of his piece "Is there a Future for Middle East Studies?" from various scholarly journals, and here are seven citations of another of his pieces, "The Palestinian Refugee Question: Toward a Solution." As such, the entries in the "Papers, articles, and chapters in edited volumes" section of the bibliography are plenty notable and verifiable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage - a citation does not meet that requirement. The nature of academic publishing is such that every academic notable enough for an article on WP will have dozens of similar published articles, bulletins etc.. as a normal part of their work, and most of these will have occasionally be cited in someone else's work, so by your reasoning we will soon have the entire publishing history of every academic as a WP article of its own. I don't believe that's what we want, nor that this meets the requirement of WP:NOTABILITY. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Rashid Khalidi. The academic is notable, this bibliography is not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philoian[edit]

Apparently, the creator of this page does not want it redirected to Philo. This article does not assert any actual usage of the term Philoian in reference to a disciple of Philo, however, so I too believe a redirect would not be very useful. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef for a no-notable neologism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't even non-notable--besides being burdened by errors and suffering a complete lack of documentation. Drmies (talk)
Delete. Should have used the sandboxsmfield —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Then if you agree that the page you created should be deleted, why not put a speedy deletion request on it, {{db-author}}?—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing episodes. I am not adding any of this content to the target article because nothing here is sourced, but I will perform a history merge so that the content can be accessed as needed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Meteor[edit]

One part original research, the rest mere plot summary which is already covered by List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing episodes. Prod disputed by anon editor without giving a reason. Farix (Talk) 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Where are the references? Alexius08 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is certainly a plot detail that doesn't merit its own article. Not even worth merging. JuJube (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gundam Wing or After Colony 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 70.55.86.100. This is a central plot element of the series and it is not explained at List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing episodes. Edward321 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge based on the above comment. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22 Cats[edit]

Fails notability, concerns regarding this criteria. — Realist² 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC in every single criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My Little Airport and Harbour Records should also be nominated. -Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This link may suggest it has a bit more than zero notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Neck Road[edit]

No ghits, either nn-notable road or hoax Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Average little roads aren't notable, and there's nothing to show that this isn't average. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article covers nothing significant outside its course and location. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Nothing in article shows that it is notable, just a road. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Apparently a significant commercial road in Virginia Beach, a small city. Seems to be rt. 379 from Mapquest; visible on even the small scale map of the city there. DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might have said "merge", but Virginia Beach, Virginia has an articel of reasonable lenght already, so that I do not think there is much worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While I don't discount the opinions of IPs or new users out of hand, I tend to afford them less weight if their arguments are contrary to policy. Here there really is nothing that meets the notability guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belt Republic[edit]

non-notable fictional empire from a non-notable series of books. Icewedge (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE in every single criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the "non-notable" comment. What constitues "notable?" Does the book have to be on the New York Times Best Seller list? There are many books that deserve mention that have never been on that list. I would point out that the Belt Republic books are in public libraries(my public library has them), in public schools(again in our public school libraries), and are available for purchase at Barnes and Noble's web site and at Amazon.com Also, the fictional Belt Republic seems not to meet the criteria for an empire. It is a fictional republic. I don't agree with the deletion suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Further comment on the Belt Republic books "notability." These books have been used in presentations for instruction at some 33 public schools in two states and one Canadian province. See the "appearances" link at the author's website www.sff.net/people/ted-butler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. Anyone who makes an effort to find out how can sell their books on Amazon and Barns and Noble websites, so that is no indication the book is noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This tells me that the books may be notable, but the realm of the books may be more suited to the article about the books, rather than their own article here. As for what's notable, see WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - More specifically, for this, see WP:FICT. Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my comments to the author of the article above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no reliable sources which write significantly about this series of books. They exist, but I couldn't see the notability. SilkTork *^YES! 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an almost unknown book series by almost unknown author. Essentially zero holdings in WorldCat for any of the authors works. "Secret fleets" & "Menace..." are in 1 library each, "2176" in 2. Typically WorldCat can under-represent such books by a factor of 2 or 3, but for a children's work of fiction anything under 100 is utterly non-notable. The publisher is an established small press, the books are not self-published, but although I dislike to mention such things in this context, most local libraries will accept and keep a published book from any local author. DGG (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I have them in my classroom and read them to my students. The more advanced read them themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnibor (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Good book series —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedartin (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Worldcat is seriously defective. The books are in the following libraries(and that's just the ones I know about in 2 states and one Canadian province.):Carmichael Middle School, Richland WA. (620 Thayer Drive, Richland, WA 99352)

Lake Forrest Park Library, Bothell, WA. Camp Burton Library, Burton, WA. Springbrook School, Kent, Washington Decatur HS, 2800 SW 320th, Federal Way, WA. Lakota MS, SW 314th St. Federal Way, WA. WJ Mouat Secondary School 32355 Mouat Drive, Abbotsford, BC V2T 4E9 Semiahmoo Middle School Library, Surrey, BC Ballou Junior High, Puyallup, WA. Aylen Junior High Literary Club, Aylen Junior High, Puyallup, WA Cascade Middle School, 11212 10th Ave, Seattle, WA. Mill Creek Middle School, 620 N. Central, Kent, WA Los Alisos Middle School, Norwalk, CA. DeMille Middle School, Long Beach, CA. Jefferson Leadership Acad., Long Beach, CA. Vashon Library, Vashon Island, WA. Maple Valley Library, Maple Valley, WA Covington Library, Covington, WA. Auburn Library, Auburn, WA. Rainier Middle School Library, Auburn, WA. Mattson Middle School, Kent, WA Sequoia Middle School, Kent, WA Pine Tree Elementary, Kent, WA

it is true that most school libraries as distinct from public libraries do not contribute to world cat. Thanks for correcting me there. DGG (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BOOK, is unsourced, I could list more. Did I also forget to mention that the above Do Not Delete voters all have not made any contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD or the article in question? Well now I have. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Several of the previous comments, I hesitate to mention it, seem very snobbish. "If you haven't contributed to Wikipedia, you aren't allowed." As for "unsourced" on the library listing. See author's website previously referenced above. Or does previous commenter insist on photo record of some kind? Notarized statement? On my honor, I have personally seen the books in those libraries. That would be sufficient in a court of law. Also, the books are in the Library of Congress, US. I notice Worldcat doesn't list them, yet that library is a huge. Sorry that Worldcat is defective in these regards. Perhaps they (caretakers of Worldcat?) can fix Worldcat. What an interesting discussion. I've been asked to speak on a panel on Wikipedia at a convention in two weeks. I'm going to have some interesting observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.104.241 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course. If you haven't contributed to Wikipedia, how can you demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedian policy? If you go see WP:NB, it simply doesn't matter how many libraries the book is in. You need to pass the criteria of WP:NB. If it does, I will withdraw my delete vote and vote keep. Otherwise, my vote remains the same. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
respond to comment. Okay. Let me try for item four on notability. This series of books have been used in a by the author in his “How to Write a Novel” lecture. The lectures were given to students by the author at the list of schools on the author’s appearance list on his web site. www.sff.net/people/ted-butler These lectures were given multiple times at high schools, middle schools, and one elementary school.) The lecture has also been given at the public libraries on the appearances list. I’m afraid you’ll have to take my word of honor that this was a lecture on “how to write a novel” based on the Belt Republic series, at 30 plus schools (given 60 plus times.) Now the question is, does that satisfy notability item 4? If verifiability is needed, contact Dana Ketcham, librarian, Pacific, Middle School, Burien, WA. She has had the Belt Republic author back at her school a number of times for novel writing lectures. Other school teacher/librarian contacts are also available. Lecture has been given at schools in two states and one Canadian province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have absolutely no trouble trusting you in this respect. However, WP:NN and WP:V both stipulate that third-party sources (i.e. a notable journal, magazine, etc.) needs to have coverage on the subject. For this particular book, that would equate to a review, a preview, or something similar. Furthermore, on WP:NB, section three (which is what I think you are referencing), I was under the impression that "instruction at multiple grade schools" meant part of the course and not merely part of a lecture. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

respond to comment. (still do not delete) Belt Republic Book One "2176 Birth of the Belt Republic" was reviewed by D. Robert Keenan in King County Journal newspaper March 14th 2006. Author reproduces review by permission at his web site. King County Library Newsbank reference for that review article is - http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/NewsBank/1105B8FF06214E30/0D4D9628AA42972A

At that time the newspaper served all of King County around Seattle, WA. King County is the most populous county in WA state. KCJ has since converted to Kent Reporter. As to instruction at multiple schools interpretation, I guess I have to say some of my own best instruction from others has come from single lectures. Also, I point out that these lectures were given during school hours and to students brought by their teachers. One librarian reported after the lectures a writing club was formed at that school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:RS and WP:V stipulate that "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed." To prove notability, you will need more than just the King County Library Newsbank reference. On the issue of lectures being counted as instruction, I'd like to hear some other peoples opinions on this. Creation of a writing club following a reading of a book is not relevant to WP:NN. Thanks for your time. DARTH PANDA^duel 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Devil's advocate here, King County Journal was the regional paper for east side until it folded a year or so ago. Site's gone, but this would be the archive. Even so, note it is still one article. Needs more. Additional point, availability at KCLS isn't notable either. Just means books at a library. Still gotta do WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete 60 plus lectures in 30 plus schools of various levels, newspaper article in King County Journal. Sure seems adequate, unless as some suggest that that many schools and a newspaper serving 1.8 million people don't count. By the way the wikipedia list of SF authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_science_fiction_writers) (around 1000 names) has some rather unknown names on it and I've been reading SF for 56 years. Should that list be reviewed for notability? Gotta take a break for travel. Hope this discussion is still going when I return.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark M. Peterson[edit]

This article seems to be a semi-advertisement for a chain of automotive dealerships, and it is unclear why the subject is notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local businessman. JJL (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--advertisement or resume; either way, this has no place on WP. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Sourced article about a prominent business identity. A few more sources wouldn't hurt. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is hardly "a prominent business identity" outside of Idaho. And while the article may appear to be sourced, please examine more closely: Most sources are actually links to the subject's various dealerships' websites. More third-party sources are necessary, but above all notability must be established, and thus far I don't see it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Group 1 Automotive. The Peterson Automotive Group that this person owned was purchased by Group 1 Automotive in 2004. I'll create a section later, with references. SilkTork *^YES! 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) The Peterson Automotive Group is a different company. I'll amend the article. SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Rename to Peterson Autoplex and rewrite - it is the company that is notable, not the person. The sources are for the company, not the man. SilkTork *^YES! 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes a fairly strong claim of notability in terms of ownership and operation of one of Idaho's largest private companies, supported by appropriate sources. The fact that it's a poorly-written article is a wonderful reason to cleanup the article, not to delete it. I will reconsider my vote as additional sources become available, and especially if they are added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:N. The usual pathological dislike of commercial organisations aside, I see no reason not to follow the usual notability standards here. Wily D 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out by SilkTork, the article details the company and provides sources related with the company. No source provided to establishes notability of the person or his role in the industry. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. I believe that SilkTork is correct that the owner is not notable in Wikipedia terms, I also think that the business almost certain is notable. I would have no objection to the article being rewritten to focus on the business, but since that article would bear little relationship to this one, deletion is appropriate - no prejudice to being recreated as an article about the company of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company may be notable, but there is no evidence that its founder has received enough coverage to meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard David Smith[edit]

I think WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS apply to this article. The only ghits I can find related to this "Richard David Smith" relate to this one incident. The image may be a copy-vio, but as it's on at least two of the google links it may be public domain. I don't know how to investigate such. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree--subject is known (if he is 'known' at all) for one thing. Besides, this kind of BLP is really, well, fishy? I mean, the guy is charged with a crime--let us stay out of this for the while. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What they said. JBsupreme (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't assert notability. A possible A7 Speedy. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence the murder is notable and he hasn't even been found guilty. TravellingCari 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is the sort of not-even-notable-only-for- (having-been accused of)-committing a heinous crime for which BLP is the remedy. Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it Rogue's Gallery. Nor is it Pillory and Stocks.com. I will be blanking the BLP part. Dloh cierekim 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Giammanco[edit]

Disputed prod for St. Louis crime family capo Vincenzo "Jimmy" Giammanco. Bio is mostly unsourced and unverifiable. Only passing reliable (or even semi-reliable) source coverage. He was the nephew of boss Anthony Giordano and was an unsuccessful candidate to succeed his uncle. Fails WP:BIO for lack of non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO's primary criteria and relationships do not confer notability. ThePointblank (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St._Louis_crime_family#Jimmy_Giammanco, a section I've just created. While there's not enough reliable sources dealing with this man in enough depth for a stand alone article, he was the verifiable boss for two years of a significant crime family,[47] and it's appropriate that he is dealt with in a section on that family. SilkTork *^YES! 11:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes From Oblivion[edit]

Non-notable film. Used to say "no budget punk film" in lead sentence before this was removed by an IP along with the prod (after I cited this as evidence of non-notability in the prod box). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article appears to be underground film and is not yet released. Films with no major studio backing often don't make release and since it is not released it is also not the subject of multiple independent sources (third party or otherwise). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MOVIE. Nobody notable attached to movie. No reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film is a no budget punk film as originally stated. You want evidence of it being a no budget punk film? How can we provide it? The film has been submitted it to the no budget film fest in Los Angeles, CA. By the 15ht of November we will know if it will become part of the festival's line-up. This has been included in a list of punk films on wikipedia since it may be of interest of fans of punk films when they scroll down the posted list. And underground films are definitely released in some form or the other (especially those in the punk genre and of no budget status). If this weren't the case, there would be no IMBD page up. Valid resources are needed to have a page up on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blvdducinema (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You still have not satisfied WP:MOVIE. Until you do, my vote stays with Delete. I also could find basically zero references pointing to its notability, so good luck. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Demons of Mercy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.H. Stavis[edit]

Non-notable author. Article was previously pretty much a promo piece, and efforts to remove the "spin" removed any assertion of notability, which is to say this author probably wasn't notable in the first place. A fair number of Google hits, but her website, this article and comic book database listings are the main ones. Fails WP:N. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to the article's what links here page, the game Demons of Mercy, the miniseries of which is to be created by R.H. Stavis. Whilst it's possible she fails Notability Policy, it seems likely that it's useful for the article to remain, to be expanded upon when the game (and miniseries) launch. - RD ^(Talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demons of Mercy until such time the game is released and more info about the author is available. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demons of Mercy. The author doesn't meet requirements of WP:CREATIVE for a standalone article, though would be appropriately mentioned as the author of the comicbook associated with the game. SilkTork *^YES! 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm - there's a degree of notability here, but at the moment there seems to be very little verifiable information other than the fact that this person wrote the series. Until there is, there's nothing much to say here and readers would be better served by reading the series' article. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packy and Marlon[edit]

Little content, no valid stub Church of emacs (Talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has little content because it was just createdMr415 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy A quick google search indicates however weird it sounds, it actually might be a valid article topic. I suggest we userfy it, so it can be worked on until the article is representable and ready to be moved into mainspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Little content" is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm not sure why the nominator feels this is not a valid stub. There's no reason to userfy either, it's fine in the article space. Pagra shtak 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct was to go for a Redirect to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games per WP:PRODUCT as the game clearly existed, but didn't appear notable. However this and this provides reliable sources confirming notability. So, it's a Keep, and I'll work those refs into the article later. SilkTork *^YES! 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. References inserted. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the refs found by SilkTork, including an article from the NYT. The newcomer who wrote the article really should have been able to find it--but if not, the much more experienced nominator should certainly have been able to also. But that's what happens when placing an afd only eighteen minutes after the article was created. DGG (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or redirect to the list of SNES games, one of the above sources is a press release which is explicitly not applicable in demonstrating notability. Although this is not a typical game and therefore will not resemble a typical game article, if the only information about it is the result of this study (which is the only thing I can find any reference to) then the article's a permastub waiting to happen. It may be more appropriate to include this information in an article on good health promoting video games, but nothing which suggests a full article can be created via multiple independent sources has been presented or found with my own searches. Someone another 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N, and passes it with colours flying. I see no reason not to follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs more work, it can be done to an extent that this article can remain on this encyclopedia. GVnayR (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly exists and seems notable enough. It needs work but I agree with GVnayR that the article can remain on this Encyclopedia Nintendofootball (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are iffy, but most super nintendo games usually have coverage. It might require someone who does some digging through old magazines, or maybe even foreign ones. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Notability does seem to be questionable, but the keep arguments certainly are plausible. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan International Air Cargo[edit]

Small cargo airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:CORP—news search finds nothing notable. However, the article should never have been sent to speedy, and the nominators use of Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines as rationale should be avoided, as the mentioned page is a proposed policy; consensus is far from being reached on that page. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original CSD nominator did not use the airline notability page, he used simply WP:CORP, via {{db-corp}}, which, IMHO, it still fails, and that *should* make it A7 speedy-able. Noting in WP:CORP says airlines are exempt. The airline notability page was first brought up by the admin who reversed my A7 speedy, as his justification for the reversal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that an A7 Speedy was inappropriate as there clearly is an assumption that an airline would be notable - the proposed guideline referred to in the nom (Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines) says "Commercial airlines offering services to the public are notable." I don't agree with that statement, and the proposed guideline needs some more input to become a useful resource for AfD, however it does indicate the confusion over what may or may not be assumed to be notable, and why a Speedy shouldn't have been used. SilkTork *^YES! 01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marka International Airport per WP:Product. There is little information on the airline, however it does exist, and it operates from Marka, so it would be appropriate to mention it there in order to build the information in that article. SilkTork *^YES! 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Redirect to Marka_International_Airport#Cargo_airlines. SilkTork *^YES! 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organisation has both an IATA and ICAO designator, just because the article is a stub shouldnt mean deleting it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as I can tell, lives on the edge of WP:N with some independent coverage, which at least adds to nontriviality. Wily D 15:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVX (Agency)[edit]

This fictional intelligence agency has no notability outside the show. According to WP:FICTION spin off articles should be avoided if there is no serious reason to be created and this is not the case. A google search is difficult, because of the name but I searched a bit for "DVX Agency" and I found nothing useful. No reason to have a redirect as well, the article's title is an unlikely search item. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction articles need real-world information in some way to satisfy NOT and NOTABILITY, but production information are generally hard to find for fictional agencies (even the widely known ones), and this agency has no real-world impact whatsoever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:Fiction. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability based on existing guideline. --Kickstart70TC 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - a search for DVX and General Hospital turned up nothing significant - [48], though it is a plot element in the show, so I added a reference to it here so a redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau might discourage the article being recreated. SilkTork *^YES! 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect per SilkTork. he must mean redirect, not delete,, since that's exactly what he is proposing to do & even made sure to add the target. DGG (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks David. My thinking went that way. SilkTork *^YES! 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent SMTP proxy[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- When I removed the prod, I added a some comments to the Talk:Transparent SMTP proxy page. This article is in bad need of references and isn't a very major subject, but it is notable enough for meet WP:N. The name may be badly chosen and is a little redundant since basically all "SMTP proxies" are transparent, otherwise they are just normal mail relays. There are lots of hits for SMTP proxy – news, books, scholar, along with similar variations on the name. Wrs1864 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Saying there are plenty of hits isn't a valid keep argument. Could you link to a reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - as per WP:BEFORE, "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." A quick review of the books listed in the link I posted in the talk page and reproduced above shows that over half of them on the first page of search results would qualify as non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The lack of references in this article is a very good reason to have an {{unreferenced}} template, but not a good reason to call for an AfD. If I had the time to pick out really good ones, I would just fix up the article, but I don't have much time this weekend, sorry. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should we rename the article SMTP proxy? I agree there appears to be sufficient reliable sources for this search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SMTP is one of the major protocols on the net. The idea of an SMTP proxy is notable and should have plenty written about it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Declaring something notable is meaningless. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain? that's exactly what I thought AfD was for, was to decide such things. DGG (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If there is a notability guideline that indicates something is notable, that's obviously ok. In other cases, significant coverage in reliable sources is expected. However, saying 'x is notable' isn't a better argument than 'i like x'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simply claiming it's notable theoretically accomplishes nothing without verifiable sources to back it up. MuZemike (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it's one of the major protocols on the net, that means standards committees have written papers for it, it's been ported to many different platforms, books have been written about it, it would have appeared in computer magazines innumerable times. SMTP is the main protocol used to send email; over a billion people have used it. It's a pretty safe assumption that hundreds of articles have been written on how to proxy it through a firewall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. In your opinion, could this be used as a reference? PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The O'Reilly Essential Systems Administration book) I think so. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll withdraw the nom. PhilKnight (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. I'll close this not least because it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Indicating Systems[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough reliable sources to indicate there is the possibility that this could be built into a decent article. SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, could you name a single reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? Are you suggesting the article should rely on sources from before 1945? PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the reliable source has never been an issue - we use Britannica 1911, though admittedly that's a problematic source. The dates of the books in that search vary and a good number are from the 1960s and 1970s. Doing a quick search by one of the trade names turned up this - [49] and this - [50], and a search on the other turned up this - [51]. That's enough to convince me that there's enough material out there to build this article when someone is interested or motivated enough. The system existed, has been written about by enough reliable sources to establish it's significance and notabilty, and forms part of the history of aviation. I can see someone coming upon the term and wishing to discover more - which is where we come in. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we use older sources for history articles etc, but for a technology article? Looking in more detail at the book publication dates, there are 8 from 1970-2008, all of which are trivial. In addition, there are 22 from 1960-1970, which appear to be trivial, although in some cases it's hard to tell from the snippet view provided. Anyway, I'll withdraw the nomination if you add a citation to a reliable secondary source that provides non-trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable, after the hoards of sources found by SilkTork. Things can be notable, even if they are obsolete, so the publishing date of the sources is completely irrelevant. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsenikk, could you link to a reliable source, whether found by SilkTork, or anyone else? PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotary variable differential transformer. Such devices are still widely used in avionics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cover older technology as much as current , if there are sources. The article however needs to clarify if the technology is current, and should have current as well as older references if it is. Whether this is properly part of the article mentioned above by Squidfryerchef needs to be discussed by people with a subject knowledge on a talk page. It is highly recommended that when the question is sourcing or notability, to do at least a simple gsearch before making nominations here, and in fact it really ought to be required to prevent nominations like this one, or at least make it obvious they are being made despite the apparent sources. DGG (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cover subjects if there is significant coverage. Could you link to a reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established. Not any question that Wikipedia covers both "historical" and "current" topics. Wily D 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been unsourced for 2 years. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however given the article is still completely unsourced, notability hasn't been established. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, if you read this discussion, we've established notability as a fact here. That it's not duplicated in the article isn't really here nor there - we know that the subject of the article meets the usual notability standards, whether that's explicitly made clear in the article or not. Wily D 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? If the answer is 'no', then notability isn't established. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done, in spite of your instances to the contrary. Additionally, if you'd bother to read WP:N before trying to apply it, you'd see that "linking" isn't part of establishing notability. Wily D 17:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novotext[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books shows plenty[52] of sources about this material, mostly texts from the 1920s-1950s. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squidfryerchef, could you link to a reliable source that provides a non-trivial mention? PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no.1, 3, and 5 of the above search will do to start out with. Listed in many works as a well known material--and has been for over 80 years now. Gardner's book, cited in the article, is the standard work of reference, and I consider anything listed there to be notable. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree about 1 or 3, however 5 is plausible, and worth adding. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Vandal nomination. We get these maybe once a month. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryutaro Hashimoto[edit]

Unknown Japanese figure. Fails WP:Notability guidelines. Tiredtiger34 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm, I think being prime minister of Japan squeaks in over the notability guideline, and even suggests questioning the seriousness of the nomination.John Z (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota L engine[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is one of many about different engines and automotive components, as well as one of numerous articles in Category:Toyota engines. (If those are notable enough, than this should be too. Otherwise, they should all be nominated for deletion, and I'm not expecting that to happen.) The addition of sources would obviously be an improvement, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm having a bit of trouble finding an online source for it, but it should be obvious enough that Toyota engines are subject to substantial popular press (magazines, typically) and that for an otherwise good article about a notable subject that's easy enough to verify exists the flawless establishment of notability shouldn't be a prerequisite. Wily D 15:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search for the article title [53], one of the obvious things to do before nomination for deletion, shows two whole books on the subject right in front of your eyes. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did say 'independent of the subject', and they are published by Toyota, however, at least that's better than nothing. I'll withdraw the nom. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moravan Otrokovice Z 43[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since I was the editor contesting the prod, I'll state my rationale. The question seems to me to be whether the Z-43 is a variant of the Z-40 series, and thus deserving of its own article, or merely a subtype, and should be discussed in the Z-40 article. (Of course, the problem is that there is NO Z-40 article, all the variants have their own articles...). In addition to the EASA TCDS for the aircraft, which shows that EASA doesn't treat the Z-40 family as a single type, I have found print references in 'Janes World Aircraft Recognition Handbook' ISBN 0-7106-0343-6 which deals with the type as 'Zlin 42/43/142' (not surprisingly, as they look similar), and in the 'Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft' ISBN 1-874023-52-2 where the article is titled 'Zlin 42/43' but provides detail mainly on the 43 version. I've found Z-43 specific mods for MSFS [54] and scale models again specifically of the Z-43 [55] and [56]. So it does look like the aircraft gets a measure of attention both as part of the 'family' and on its own. Now, I'll concede that the Z-40 family is a bit of a mess, with aircraft articles redirecting to each other, and perhaps there should be a Z-40 family article, with the subtypes branching off it. But the information would still be on wiki, just shuffled around, so it wouldn't be a delete. MadScot (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we could move this article to Moravan Otrokovice Z 40 series, and then add those sources? PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, to do it properly would mean sorting out all of the Z-40 series articles, gathering them into one, and some of the articles are lengthy, so they might end up being split out again. But it would certainly preserve the info. I'm also not sure if the articles started as one and got split out later, in which case we'd be just going over old ground. But it's one solution. MadScot (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, regardless, you've convinced me - I'll withdraw the nom. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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