Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 18 December 20 >

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 keep. MBisanz talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimitoshi Yamane

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

Unnotable "mecha designer"; creator claims there are sources proving notability, but the only ones provide either just stated "Yamane designed the mechs for this series/film" or are on disc/tape series extras that are primary sources and useful for production sections of those series, but do not establish any notability at all for him (essentially self-published-style stuff). Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Not actual significant coverage has yet to be produced for this person. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this article's subject is on ANN [1] and ja-wiki as well as several other sources. The article's subject is a renowned mecha designer, well-known for supervising the mecha designs for Vision of Escaflowne, Cowboy Bebop, Xam'd: Lost Memories and several others. His involvement in these works have been detailed and published over numerous anime-based magazines such as Newtype (later to be translated for its USA issues), Animage and numerous others. He has also published numerous works on mecha design and is amongst the most highly-regarded in the anime industry. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, thanks to Google Books (which is a most limited resource, unfortunately, I must tell you), I have found an excellent book: Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews by the very well-known authors Fred Patten and Carl Macek, which mentions Yamane glowingly (in page 359) as a co-creator of Cowboy Bebop, also referring to his involvement in the movie Cowboy Bebop: Knockin' on Heaven's Door as being part of the "same dream team of creators" that created the original Cowboy Bebop TV series. This is a particularly glowing reference from two who are amongst the noted American authors on anime, and this I found thanks to Google Books, that is hard to navigate. I'm sure that I would be able to find far more if I was provided with an actual library of anime books (I believe there are a few though I don't have access to these) or even magazines, I would be able to find much, much, much more. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clowing? There is nothing glowing there! That ref just repeats that he was part of the crew. Again, not significant coverage. Again, great reference for the production history of Cowboy Bebop but does not establish this man's individual notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition to what others have already said, the book mentions he was a "co-creator" and part of the "dream team" that "created" the original series (added quotes to reflect the actual wording). As Nohansen and C S have mentioned, him being a creator of the show is of note and is quite notable, and I agree with them. This proves that he was definitely involved in the co-creation of this show. Also, this book is not a type that would refer to simply every animation on earth - no, this book refers to the most influential and widely-talked about anime and manga series that have influenced several aspects of society. I would urge you to read this superb book thoroughly as it is a gem authored by two, very well-known authors. This is only by means of a Google search though, a librarian who has far more reach than I, would be able to provide far more books. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Collectonian, please take it easy. Your editing behavior and comments thus far (including the article discussion page) are overtly hostile. This is not a battle. The ref does not just say he was "part of the crew". It describes him as a "leading member" of the creative team that created Cowboy Bebop. He is one of the handful of main credits named in the opening theme song (before the listing of multiple names on one screen). It's hard for me to believe that you would see all this and think he's just "crew", e.g. one of the fifty or so people involved in the production. --C S (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was a general statement, and he is just part of the crew. I've yet to see any actual significant coverage about this man as a person, which is what a biography should cover. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Page 357 clearly states five names from the creative team. The leader was Shinichiro Watanabe and "other leading members were", followed by four names including Yamane. That you would interpret this as a "a general statement"...I'm flabbergasted. If it weren't any clearer, later further down that page, the authors comment that "The space adventure...that Watanabe's team came up with..." Then on page 359, it is mentioned that these people are the '"dream team" of creators' that came up with Cowboy Bebop. Since you can't seem to access the same reference everyone else can, I'm starting to wonder on what basis you are making your judgment. --C S (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, so he is significant in one series. That still does not meet either WP:N nor WP:ENTERTAINER. In all other credits he is just noted as the mecha designer with no significant coverage (and even these now two pages are NOT significant coverage, he's mentioned in passing as part of the team, while the book itself is focusing on the series, not him or any of the others). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • A mechanical designer is a 'very important figure involved in the creation of anime series - and he doesn't just design robots but the vehicles, buildings and basically anything that might run on a machine - in science fiction shows, they are often the actual core-creators and in anime programs, where a team must work together in order to produce said show, or any show, they are essential in the creation. They are highly important figures in the industry and Mr. Kimitoshi Yamane isn't just "significant" in "one" or "two shows" - he has been responsible for the creation and development of several pioneering anime. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Collectonian, I must change/add my reply here after seeing your revert of my addition of this reference to the article, not because you reverted it, but because you said you cannot view the page that I mentioned as a very important reference on Google Pages. You might not be aware of Google Pages, that is why I mentioned its format is troublesome, but they only provide a few pages for view on Internet Explorer, however Opera manages to view page 359 perfectly. Again, if your browser does not show the page, then please do not rely on Google Pages as it is merely a preview resource - refer to a library copy of the book, or you can also buy the book if you like. But nonetheless, it is mentioned there, very clearly, and in glowing terms, that he did infact co-create Cowboy Bebop, and it does not mince words in the slightest. I have provided that all that is possible with my meagure resources, as I do not have access to any library containing any anime books of any kind, but if these resources are removed as well and my edits reverted simply because your browser cannot view the page, then I cannot do anything whatsoever. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you have reverted my edits yet again. You claimed that all I did was add the same page from the book - but this is false as I even mentioned in my initial edit summary that I was referring to page 359, not 357 as was the case with the previous reference. If you cannot view it, it views clearly on Opera. If you cannot view this, please refer to the book on a library or buy it. The cite book template only mentions that you have to mention a source where to buy the book, if it is hardcover or published book, I cannot provide an actual URL. That is how Google Pages runs. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google books does NOT have page 359. This does NOT change based on browser, its the same on all systems. If you have the book, cite the book not Google books, otherwise I question how you know what page 359 says. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually it does. Rather than questioning, an assumption of good faith would be good here. Thus far, in discussion, and in your frequent reversions, you seem to be battling it out. --C S (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Pages DOES indeed have the book. And it views PERFECTLY on Opera. Here is a screenshot that I have personally made to help: [2]. Okay, so you cannot see it, then please get the book yourself or refer to a library - but why must you remove my reference, or modify it and exchange in reverting my edits? I have not lied, this book is very well-known and real, and really I am not as well-connected to get myself an anime library in a moment's notice, but this is what I have found, in order to save this article, and you are just reverting my edits and disregarding anything that I am saying. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up your references, removing the URL as it only works for you, not for others (and; FYI, I'm using Firefox, so stop presuming you know what browsers it does or does not work in; nor is the URL necessary at all, its extraneous and only helpful if it works for all people). It takes me to page 357, not 359, and scrolling down to 359 says page not available. Cleaning up and fixing reference formatting is fully appropriate. Even from your own screen shot, it is not significant, it his his name listed among a list of creators for the series (and I feel your way of stating it is a misstatement of that line, but left it there). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(enough colons I hope) Ganryuu's links worked fine for me on Firefox, but I use the Mac beta version <shrug>. Anyhoo, it appears we now all agree that Yamane is credited as a co-creator of Cowboy Bebop. Given the significance of this particular series, I would suggest just this alone satisfies WP:CREATIVE. And he's not just a one-hit wonder. I would argue he was not "just crew" on those other famous shows where he is a main credit. --C S (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page does work perfectly for Opera and Google users - again, I mentioned previously, Google Pages is an extremely complicated site - I mentioned it more than once. Some books do not even load at all and sometimes the only way to reach it is through a Google search. This is why I mentioned it is a very limited resource, as you just have to buy the book to get its information. I have noticed this many times while creating Japan-based articles (often the sources for Japan-based topics are so scarce that you have to refer to 100-year journals as I did while creating Hiiragi the plant, and found much to my displeasure that I would have to buy this journal to read it fully, which is not cheap since it is almost a century old). I mentioned this also on my initial edit, which you simply disregarded and reverted. Again, I would ask you to get this book for yourself if you want to read further than one or two pages. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC
I am a Google user, thanks. So please quite presuming you know why it is not showing for me. And quit saying buy the book, its annoying. You claimed Google Books had the page, the URL did not work. It was fully appropriate to question it when you yourself don't have the book either. That the URL only apparently works for you (and maybe C S who didn't clarify if the URL works for him or if he just looked at your screenshot) makes it perfectly reasonable to both question it and to remove it from the article per linking guidelines that online versions references only available to some people should not be linked too (which is why we don't attempt to link to archived articles on pay to see sites)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the URL works perfectly for anyone who has Opera and is registered to Google's mail and other services. I do not design the site, so yes, I have no right to say why it does not show for you, however, I am aware of how it runs and since I am interested in such things can provide a reasonable to explation to why it might not work for you. But, the cite tag actually does not require or even say in any way that you have to show an URL where you can actually view the book - that is almost impossible for resource journals and books that have been published since the 1900s - all it does say is that you can add a link where people who want to read the book for themselves for whatever reason can buy it. As far as I am aware of the reference policy, I can indeed reference a book, its pages, ISBN and even provide a suitable resource where some users can view the page in question (again, there are several Linux or Mac users that use different browsers, for them the results might be different as well), and then at least expect my edits and reference not be completely reverted and removed from the article in question, especially an article that might be soon gone. Well, you have your reasons for questioning my edits, but I have done all that I can with my resources. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am a registered Google user but thanks again for your attempted explanation. Also, again, the URL field is NOT for people to read the book themselves nor a buy link. It is primarily for pointing to a valid on-line version. Either way, that page is apparently only for a very limited subset of users, again, it is not appropriate to include as it does not work for the majority of users. Your edit is still there, with the URL removed, per your screenshot. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not wish to argue on semantics or tech details, but it only does not work on Internet Explorer, which has several issues, from what I have seen. However, the link works absolutely perfectly for Opera and Firefox users - Opera is merely a few mbs of download so it should not take much time to download it and test for yourself. Since this is easier than actually going ahead and buying it, I would recommend everyone to try it for themselves, and no I am not an Opera salesman, merely trying to recommend a way how people can read it for themselves. So the URL is quite valid, and people who have those browsers or those willing to download them, should be able to read those so I don't think that 's a "limited subset of users". But still, if there's a policy which obligates the total use of Internet Explorer, I guess I can live with the URL being gone forever. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I've now said multiple times that I am a Google editor and using Firefox, your repeated claims are obviously false and show you are apparently not bothering to really read my responses. It is only working for Opera and Mac Firefox Beta users, which is a very limited subset of users, comparatively speaking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually Opera is used by millions of users worldwide. It is not limited in the least and virtually the entire mobile phone industry uses it, which I might add, accounts for a huge proportion of users. And there are also several millions who will be able to see it, but we're not software testers who have any reach in those sort of things. If it doesn't work for you on Firefox, then why not download Opera? This is an article's integrity we're talking about. And for an article you yourself has nominated, then I would say it is of paramount importance. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opera is not one of the top two browsers in the world, nor do most people use mobile phones to read Google books. Claiming millions of Wikipedia readers will be able to see it is purely false and showing your fan love of the browser. Go check some real stats. Opera has less than 1% of the browser market share per multiple reliable sources. And sorry, but I'm not switching to a substandard browser to see a single resource nor should I nor ANYONE ELSE have to switch browsers to see a damn source. Your suggest is purely ludicrous and completely against Wikipedia's desires to be accessible to all readers regardless of browser. You seem overly fond of making sweeping, unsupported statements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it really seems that you think I'm a real fan. I was actually referring to the mobile phone industry, which actual stats and the very article here on this Wikipedia, state that most mobile phones are equipped with Opera and it is actually virtually the most widely endorsed and downloaded mobile (and Symbian) browser in the mobile phone industry. If you disagree and still think I'm a fan, then I would just ask you to read those articles. I am sorry if I made any sweeping, unsupported statement, but I think most of what I have said are based on actual facts. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in regards to your statement that I am a "fan", supposedly, in other places and here, I must inform you that I am not really a "fan" of Kimitoshi Yamane, in fact, I have not even met him and I haven't really seen even one quarter of his works, which aren't my favourite either. I only translated this article from the Japanese Wikipedia as this has always been like a hobby of mine. But that does not mean I actually am a fan or greatly admire them or their works. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Opera displays the pages is irrelevant to this discussion. The information has been verified as I own the book and looked it up, and then corrected the refs accordingly. Please stop arguing, both of you, as it is doing nothing to continue the discussion of the actual topic at hand here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Nihonjoe says, there is no requirement for reference sources to be viewable online, but for the record, I am able to view this infamous page 359 on both Firefox and Internet Explorer browsers running on Windows. --DAJF (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for going off the topic, I suppose it might be an update issue but yes, you're right - that has nothing to do with this topic. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yamane does not fail WP:CREATIVE. Criteria three reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". As a (founding) member of Artmic, Yamane played a major role in the creation of Bubblegum Crisis, Detonator Orgun and Gall Force.--Nohansen (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mecha designer, or mechanical art designer, is an important role in Japanese animation (often one of the main credits). Yamane has quite a substantial resume, having worked on a number of important anime. I see no reason he fails the notability criteria. I see no reason to doubt Ganryuu's more than reasonable claims that there are suitable 3rd party references available describing Yamane's work. It would have been a more community-oriented attitude to have given Ganryuu some time to add them (it has been only 7 hours since article creation). --C S (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability criteria now appear to have been satisfied, although the main editor involved might do better by maintaining a more objective tone and avoiding peacock terms such as "renowned" and "glowing" etc. --DAJF (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a founder of ARTMIC, as well as being a co-creator of multiple significant and well-known works, the only thing required now is to improve the article with more references (there is already a decent start). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Obviously notable, heavily sourced. Edward321 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB talk 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive decision making

Proactive decision making (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, procedural nomination. I have no opinion on it just yet. Wizardman 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you don't want it deleted, but you nominate it for deletion anyway merely because someone else thinks that it shouldn't be deleted? That's just pointlessly wasting everyone's time, including your own. I recommend that everyone coming to this discussion read the sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making before wasting too much of that time. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. WP:AGF, now! That's my reactive decision-making ;) (note that my comment may be neither "rational" nor "advisable," according to that article). MuZemike (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said anything about bad faith? I said that it was pointless time wasting. Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable term. All the contents of this article (currently three sentences' worth) could easily be fit into the decision making article. Korny O'Near (talk)
    • Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Article development. We don't delete articles because they are currently stubs. And there is plentiful evidence of possibilities for expansion laid out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. I didn't point to it just to exercise my wikitext writing skills, you know. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying to delete it because it's short, I'm saying to delete it because I don't think anything notable can be said about the topic, an opinion somewhat confirmed by the article's current small size. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The size of an article is no indication of anything, apart from a lack of interest by editors in actually writing on a subject. Wikipedia isn't finished. North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, stood as a 2-sentence stub for almost five years. The true indicators of whether anything can be said on a subject are the existence of sources that document that subject, using which editors (if they decide to actually write about the subject) can build an article; and I cited several at the aforementioned AFD discussion. (Those are far from the only sources that exist, by the way.) I repeat: Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we don't delete expandable stubs. We expand them. If you are going around asking for short articles that haven't been expanded yet to be deleted, rather than coming to them and first thinking "How can this be expanded?", then you have not understood nor assimilated Wikipedia editing norms, and the project's philosophy as exemplified by its basic editing and deletion policies. Please read the policies, and think about them, until our process of Wikipedia:Article development becomes apparent. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, so ignore my comments about the size. I still think it's a non-notable term, and that the article should be deleted. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject is non notable verbage. --Stormbay (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 01:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zog BogBean - From the Marcy Playground

Zog BogBean - From the Marcy Playground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable album. "The album was recorded in his home" pretty much sums up the fact that it isn't a major album. It never charted, wasn't released by a major label, etc. Tavix (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing out my typos, I'm sure everyone knew what I meant... Tavix (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival music company

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

Unnotable Music Company Tavix (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Valve Corporation. MBisanz talk 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valve Complete Pack

Valve Complete Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability, no coverage in third party sources (apart from news stories). Mika1h (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we aren't here to document all of Valve's marketing and product deals. This isn't The Orange Box, which has plenty significant coverage and reviews, this is just a collection of notabile titles on Steam bunched together, its not independently notable and notability is not inherited upwards in this case. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per S@bre, plus I remember correctly, Valve has about a dozen of these different combinations, and none of them are very notable in of themselves. (Although a good case can be made for the Orange Box, because Portal was released with that). Danski14(talk) 16:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Valve Corporation. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a marketing promotion, rather than a unique game release. There's nothing substantial to write about here. At most, worth a mention or two at each respective game article ("the game was also released as part of a pack on November 12"). Randomran (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wyandotte, Michigan#Education. as per normal precedent. Content under the redirect if someone wants to merge. StarM 01:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Elementary School (Wyandotte, Michigan)

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Elementary School (Wyandotte, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable elementary school, no reliable sources are in the article except for the school website, which leads me to think it is WP:OR. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if we are adding the school to the locality then we have to set up a redirect for GFDL purposes. It also avoids breaking one of the incoming links.TerriersFan (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect I did a cleanup of the article about a month ago, fixing a lot of tone problems. I tried to find sources to add to the article, but was unable to find any. I agree it doesn't seem notable enough, but merge/redirect seems to be the common solution for non-notable schools. Raven1977 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C Clarke's List of the best Science-Fiction films of all time

AfDs for this article:
Arthur C Clarke's List of the best Science-Fiction films of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copyvio of Clarke's book and not significant enough for its own article either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supreme Commander. MBisanz talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factions in Supreme Commander

Factions in Supreme Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of fictional groups does not establish notability independent of Supreme Commander 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 of the article, so the current summary in the main article is adequate. TTN (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep TTN redirected this article to the main Supreme Commander article without discussing this in any way or establishing consensus. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to arrive at one. I believe this article is improveable in line with Species of Starcraft, and that some time should be allowed to assist the article in reaching this standard. While eventualism is not such a great philosophy, I believe that by initiating this discussion we may be motivated into at least trying to improve the article before merging or deleting it. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can provide sources that contain real world information comparable to the real world information of the Starcraft list, I will gladly withdraw this for now. Until then, there is really no reason to believe that this has any potential. TTN (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a straight redirect plus a quick merge for the moment would be fine, as there are citations meaning that the material is WP:V, which makes it "safe" to include in the parent. Recreating the article with real-world information when we have that on hand would be better for all articles involved, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Apart from some opinions and trivial detail and images with dubious fair use claims, all the material is already in the main article, so there's no good reason to make a split off. The only thing I'd recommend to include in the main article is the faction logos in some combined logo image. - Mgm|(talk) 00:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe this was originally created because there was so much necessary information for the factions of SupCom that a new article was necessary to cover it all. I see no problem with integration, but the article was voted to be an FA with the voters knowing the comprehensiveness of the factions was never in question. As such, if you blithely redirect it, it could destabilize the quality of the main Supreme Commander article. As a person who is not knowledgeable about Supreme Commander and how much info is necessary, I think other voices should be heard. If Krator is still around, he has a good understanding of the article, and a worthwhile opinion. I myself am retired, and have a hazy understanding of current polices.--CM (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – into Supreme Commander and cut all the excessive fair-use images per WP:NFCC. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DeathAngel.  Xihr  06:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see how this, as a subject, conforms to WP:WAF guidelines. The factions should be briefly discussed in the plot synopsis in the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, allowing for possibility of spinning out again at a later date when sources can be found. The nomination here highlights the problem with using boilerplate text. The article is reasonably (but not completely) referenced; original research is at a minimum. The references provided are all from a reliable source. There are very few plot details here, none of which would be considered "excessive" if the article had the information required to demonstrate notability. Only a few lines feel like game guide content. What we have here has been written well. If it wasn't for the fact I know TTN has been discussing the article on the talk page, one might easily assume he hasn't looked at it. Judging by what I'm reading at the talk page, the people working on Supreme Commander are currently trying to sort out articles relating to Command and Conquer, and thus are a little too busy to deal with sorting out this article, but seem confident they can get development and reception information. We have a plausible search term here, people willing to try to improve the article when time permits and decent prose to build on. Redirect or userify it. That way the editors won't have to start from scratch when they get around to it. Worst case scenario, allow editors to merge the content into the into the main article. -- Sabre (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, allowing for possibility of spinning out again at a later date when sources can be found per S@bre. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (pruning as necessary) into Supreme Commander (which ought to be called Supreme Commander (game) to distingusih from real life supreme commanders such as President of USA and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Curtis

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

No reliable sources to verify notability independent from Naked News. Information about subject can be mentioned in main Naked News article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then why not be bold and merge or redirect yourself? - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A previous prod ended up in a delete but the article was restored because another user contested the deletion. I'd prefer a discussion before trying to wipe out any content and replace it with a redirect rather than unilateral boldness. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Are you suggesting that the individual pages of all the anchors should be merged into the Naked news page, or that the sources for Katherine's Page aren't reliable enough to be used here at all? (there are two ways to interpret your comment) --Threkk (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Some of the anchors, like Lily Kwan for example, may be notable enough for their own entry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Lily is notable, and that not all the anchors are. I feel that Lily is notable because she's done more at the Naked News than just read the news(Interviews, Concerts, Gallery Openings, etc and Producing her own segment). Similarly Katherine Curtis has done more than most of the anchors (she's taken over most of the interviews that Lily used to do for one thing, and she created a new segment she's writing), which is especially impressive to me because she's been with the show for only a year now. Most of the anchors I would consider deserving their own entry didn't do as much as Katherine in their first year (Samantha Page did some interesting stuff pretty quickly though) --Threkk (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 07:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A curious identity involving binomial coefficients

A curious identity involving binomial coefficients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability of the combinatorial identity is very questionable. The title itself hints that the article does not contain encyclopedic content. Leon math (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. If this were a discussion on what to choose for the priority field of the math rating banner, I would put it very low. And this is far from enough to establish notability for Sun himself. But published journal papers by three independent researchers or groups of researchers on the same thing, the two not by sun both mentioning the "curious identity" in their titles, is enough for notability of a mathematical result to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is apparently discussed by three independent sources if we can believe the references. Unfortunately I am not well-versed in mathematics. I suggest this should be brought to the eyes of a maths wikiproject so the experts can hash this out. - Mgm|(talk) 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the title has to change, because it sounds silly at the moment. Perhaps Sun's curious identity would be an appropriate title? JulesH (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Binomial coefficient#Identities involving binomial coefficients. Not sufficiently notable to have its own article. Also inherently stubby - the result offers no illuminating insights, no generalisations, no consequences, and has no interesting history. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the title should change if this is kept. Certainly there are many "curious identities" involving binomial coefficients. The amount of scholarly attention this one has received seems to indicate not only some degree of notability, but also that this is not merely one of the innumerable "curious identities", so a different title should be used. So I suppose some portions of my comments above add up to:
Tentative keep. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The page's title is taken directly from the title of Sun Zhi-Wei (2002), a perfectly respectable and well-cited, peer-reviewed article. Why is deletion of this wiki page even being considered, when there are between four and six peer-reviewed academic journals, of direct relevance, cited? Zhi-Wei evidently thought it was a "curious identity" and if he (she?) and the editor and referees thought so too, that's good enough for me and should be enough to satisfy wikipedia's notability criteria. I don't think that merging with Binomial coefficient#Identities involving binomial coefficients as per Gandalf61 is the right way forward, because although the article is pretty stubby now (as Gandalf61 correctly points out) one day the article might well be much bigger and (eg) include proofs (more than one!); I'll get round to it one day. So if we merged, there would have to be a main page: ... link. I have not yet had time to digest Sun 2008 but the abstract says "We also ... investigate Bernoulli and Euler polynomials. Our approach depends heavily on an identity established by the author [A curious identity involving binomial coefficients (sic), EJCNT (2)2002, A4 ...]". (this quote further establishes the legitimacy of the page title). I'll get round to including some of these 2008 results in the page when I get a minute. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply. I'm going to reply to myself (having just this minute obtained Sun Zhi-Wei 2008) and point out that that paper is (IMHO) pretty poor in terms of take-home messages, assessment of notability, help for non-experts, likely applications outside the discipline, and so on. This type of mathematical paper is extremely difficult to wikify. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Robinh (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 (bio) by Aude. Mgm|(talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Carpenter, Illustrator

Stephen Carpenter, Illustrator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography on a non-notable Hallmark illustrator. Tavix (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erotas Online

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

Non-notable web site; no claims of notability made. Blowdart | talk 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial (Japanese Version)

Celestial (Japanese Version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Old piece of crystal. Written in advance of an unconfirmed release that apparently never came to pass. —Kww(talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it proved a point not to write an article before anything is confirmed, because it never happened...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as failing WP:V. There are no sources to prove the album's existence, never mind any of the details, and I can't find any after a sift through the inter-nets. It might be worth adding a note on the Celestial (RBD album) article stating that a Japanese version was slated for release; if it can be proven, of course. – Toon(talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw nomination. Mindmatrix 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Folk Festival

Regina Folk Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only sources were local in nature, no substantial third party coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC) *Delete per WP:LOCAL: Events of local interest only are not notable. Tavix (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficiently notable to sustain its own article. It is already covered here Culture in Regina, Saskatchewan#Regina Folk Festival in sufficient detail. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable (though I wouldn't mind going myself). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:LOCAL also mentions that it is okay to make articles about local historical events when putting them in the main article would cause size issues (Wikipedia:Subarticle). - Mgm|(talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The coverage in the main article is minimal and it could improve with material from this article. Also, a redirect to point people to the info is appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Festival held since 1969. Hard to believe it hasn't been covered rather extensively in all these years. Right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are substantial Google News results [3]. A forty year festival is notable. I would say almost inherently so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness upon further inspection many of the google news results were no good. But there is still plenty out there for an article.
We seem to get upset at people with conflicts of interest, but let's not forget for a moment that someone passionate about their work or a project they love may simply be coming here, naming themself after something important in their life, and trying to contribute. Empathy might soften our approach and help to guide them into people who enjoy good faith contributing and learn the rules instead of turning them off Wikipedia immediately by hitting them hard with templates and rule violations. A little human touch and compassion would go a long way. Happy Holidays y'all! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per some of the 19 news sources listed above and some of the 13 book sources, including passing mentions in at least 2 books that were not directories of events. Article needs improvement and better referencing but not deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC) update to reflect that some of the sources aren't useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not seeing anything that's beyond the scope of local interest, and none of the news sources seemed to have anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Well, maybe if I'd looked at the article. I say keep now, I'm withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a well-known festival in Canada, where some big names in music play. WP:LOCAL does not apply, from what I'm seeing. The sources have been tough to wade through: my library database gives me 273 hits for "Regina Folk Festival". But I'm managed to add some of the press coverage just now, including some national coverage. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and noted festival. Article has much improved references since nomination and I'm certain there are more. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Following the expansion of the references. Should be linked from the main town article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is well referenced and looks notable now. Tavix (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSDA7.  – iridescent 00:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew reese

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

Nonnotable musician's autobiography (created by User:Drewreese). I originally prodded for lack of sources; author has now added sources, but none are independent or reliable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No suggestion of notability. Sources are all self-published, or completely trivial. No claims of any particular achievement that would normally be considered notable. JulesH (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 what julesH said. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Last (Dave Aude (Remix EP)

Make It Last (Dave Aude (Remix EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete nothing to indicate that this particular remix EP is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humphead records

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

This label does nothing except reissue Mercury/MCA Nashville albums on the cheap. No sources found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cortez de la sierra

Cortez de la sierra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. I cant find any coverage in reliable sources. A search for "Cortez de la sierra" brings <1000 google hits, with 'Cortez de la sierra" and "review" less than 250. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus among commenters have unanimously agreed on the anime's notability. Non-admin closure. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina: A Magical Story

Thumbelina: A Magical Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, and no evidence of notability for this anime series. The article itself contains little information other than an episode list. Raven1977 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The anime is listed in ANN [4] and has a page on ja.wikipedia [5]. This needs expansion (or translation) not deletion. Burzmali (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets anime notability requirements in that it is licensed for English release as well as in two other languages. Needs clean up, not deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been translated into several different languages and broadcast, which would more than satisfy notability. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable," which this was. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, merge discussions can be taken elsewhere. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SirsiDynix

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

I am also nominating the following related page as a non-notable product of this corporation:

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

Article is about a corporation which does not appear to meet the Wikipedia guidelines about inclusion, WP:N and WP:CORP. Only external references are a trivial mention about a merger involving this company, and cites to the companies own website. Being merged does not make a company notable, and there do not appear to be any other reliable, extensive, and independent sources in the article which indicate that this is a notable company. Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep SirsiDynix; Merge and Redirect Dialcat. I added 10 sources and expanded the article.  LinguistAtLarge  20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination A few hours after I nominated this, it wasrescued by someone who has added some unambiguously independent and extensive references. I no longer consider this company non-notable, given the work done. Good job! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(After editconflict with above) And I would support his merge idea. Since LinguistAtLarge has taken the lead on this, perhaps he could handle the WP:MERGE? He seems to be on top of this, and would seem to know how to best put the info together. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 - the article would need to be completely rewritten to be neutral. And as the band has released just one EP on a small label, it doesn't seem that the article would survive this AfD even if it was rewritten. faithless (speak) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Terrified

I Am Terrified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to fail the guidelines set at WP:MUSIC. In addition to that, the History sections seems like complete advertising. Also, I can't find any 3rd party reliable sources. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud connection

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google. I also can't find any sources on Google News and Google Books. Schuym1 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, what about iTunes? type in cloud connection, and the 30,000+ profile views. also recently cloud connections orriginal EP was selling on Amazon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.251.252 (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as A7. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath The Remains (band)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. roleplayer 18:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lady GaGa. MBisanz talk 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Tree (Lady GaGa song)

Christmas Tree (Lady GaGa song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Download-only single, utterly fails WP:SONGS. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, merge strongly preferred. Extremely strong do-not-delete edit history. While song is totally not notable it is by a Grammy-nominated artist whose album hit the top-10 in charts in several countries. In my book, this qualifies under the "all works by this very notable artists get a free pass" WP:IAR exception. WP:SONGS recommends redirects for non-notable songs, so I'm kind of surprised this went to AFD instead of a WP:MERGE proposal or even a WP:BOLD redirect and merge. I do not think a merge would be controversial at this time. It would be a shame to lose the edit history and have some editor later spend time rewriting the article should this song ever become notable in its own right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with "all works by this very notable artists [sic] get[ting] a free pass". Nothing should get a "free pass" on Wikipedia. The reason I didn't ask for a merge/redirect is because a.) almost every time I merge/redirect a pop song it gets undone 2 seconds later, and b.) I think the (Lady GaGa song) part makes for an unlikely redirect term. Also, saying "should this song ever become notable" is looking into a crystal ball. What if it doesn't? Then we'd have to go through this again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a marginal song by The Beatles got exactly as much press as this has - i.e. virtually no independent press - I and many others would say it qualifies under a free pass. Maybe you wouldn't, but I would be shocked if and afd for such an article wasn't immediately WP:SNOWed. This artist isn't as famous as the Beatles, and if she were "merely notable" I would vote delete as well. She's in that band between "merely notable" and "out and out famous." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the "free pass" idea stems from a common misreading of WP:MUSIC, which says that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles" (emphasis mine). Unfortunately, many misread this and think it says that albums are automatically notable.
WP:MUSIC goes on to say "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." That would include the "marginal song by The Beatles" (although, frankly, I highly doubt that any song by The Beatles would have no independent press, as there would be at least 25 professional reviewers writing articles along the lines of "I can't believe no one has written about this song!")--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Digital releases are the latest big thing, but the song only reached 125 on the charts. No indication that it is notable at the moment. Recreate if it is a big hit at some later date. Burzmali (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I raised my concerns about this song on Ten pound hammers talk page. — Realist2 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David and TenPound both make good arguments, in my opinion. As this is a single released on the internet, I think it is appropriate to delete it. The relevant information can be included in the artist's article and if/ when the song is included on an album, added that way. Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it isn't a notable song. It should probably be merged to the Album but that's not for AfD. Tavix (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, so redirect is inappropriate, and I scoff at the notion that Lady Gaga is sufficiently famous to warrant any kind of exception. The only reason I have ever heard of her is the constant need to delete and redirect articles about her non-notable singles.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lady GaGa, with delete being my second choice. The guideline does say merge, but there's not much sourced info to merge.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given, but also for the dreadful writing, namely, "Christmas Tree is a song by Lady GaGa. The song exclusively premiered on Perez Hilton on December 2, 2008. The song features Space Cowboy. The song is available.....".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. The creator is right, I should have done research before tagging it. It's not entirely my fault, considering the article creator didn't provide any sources. If the creator provided sources, it wouldn't have been prodded or sent to AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle and the Mountains

The Oracle and the Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The reason I gave in the prod was "No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK." Schuym1 (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said in the talk page, if Schuym had even bothered to do research rather that slap a VFD on it after less than a minute, he would have been able to find that it does not, in fact, fail notability. The story has been "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself": the three volumes of The Dark Tower Concordance by Robin Furth, The Road to the Dark Tower by Bev Vincent, and the two Marvel Comics guides. Also, I would say that Stephen King is "is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" seeing as literally all of his other short stories and works have articles on Wikipedia. This should not be an exception. But the bottom line is that Schuym put a VFD on it before he could possibly have verified it one way or another. Kuralyov (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as blatant misinformation, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Shines (TV Show)

Monkey Shines (TV Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a hoax, based on a joke made by Jonathan Coulton et al. Carrierlost (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro(talk) 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Rancourt

Denis Rancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Ah, you wrote this while I was concluding the opposite -- which do you think are false positives? The ones I looked at were all at the University of Ottawa. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The news sources listed above appear sufficient, taken together, to satisfy WP:BIO. He also appears to be considered an expert on environmental issues, per: [6] Additionally, I believe his physics work might well meet WP:PROF. A Google Scholar search[7] finds one paper on which he is first author with 164 citations, & many others with respectable citations. His physics research could do with being mentioned in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied to User:WriterWritesWriting/Sandbox by Fullstop (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RUA RED

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

Previously speedily deleted (blatant advertising), previously nominated for proposed deletion (author removed tag without discussion or justification). Article appears to be entirely unreferenced advertising for a non-notable facility. The article does not appear to follow standard Wikipedia article naming conventions. Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved the article to the user's sandbox, where the newbie can work on it. I'll walk him/her through with it. Rationale: Don't bite the newbies. While the article doesn't meet quality standards (to include peacock terms), that isn't per-se "blatant advertising". This isn't a company we are talking about, but a cultural center built by a government agency (South Dublin county). Give the guy a chance! -- Fullstop (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmatic

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

Fails WP:NM; non-notable unreleased album with lack of substantial coverage from third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an album which was unreleased but leaked onto the internet so there are no official sources available, this therefore should exclude the article from needing sources, also it never will be released so there probably won't ever be any official sources. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.crawford (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no article about an album is excused the need for references, otherwise i'd put all my one-copy CD-R ones up here. If this album ever gets a release it will generate reviews etc which may justify an article. Perhaps as a bootleg it may be a source of notable speculation similar to Prince's black album - but it will still need reliable sources of information. Until then, delete this. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources claiming such information in the article. If it is unreleased, it would be mentioned by Nas himself or a close associate. None of that is present, just links to download it. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I can confirm this is an official online release from myself. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasir Nas Jones (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So confirm it. Point to an interview or press statement confirming this release. Just saying so here isn't enough. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I mention it in this interview http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F0w3LL5bZhE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasir Nas Jones (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. Sorry I gave the wrong link http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tvty4CaEHHU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasir Nas Jones (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • YouTube is not a reliable source. MuZemike (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — I have struck the previous three instances of "Don't Delete." Nasir Nas Jones, this is not a vote, but a discussion, so attempts at votestacking is useless. Your repeated iterations of "Don't Delete" give you the impression of votestacking. MuZemike (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - No WP:RS of this "unreleased" album to even verify the Track listing ... simply fancruft ... should have been CSD A9. Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator due to the verifiability issues. JBsupreme (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are serious verifiability problems here, helped of course by the idea that it's not for sale. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G6 by Versageek. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of vocal ranges

List of vocal ranges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is completely inaccurate. The terms listed are not vocal ranges but voice types. The terms are related but are essentially different as voice types are classified by many other factors in addition to vocal range. Further, there really are no terms that could go under a "list of vocal ranges" so the list should be deleted. Nrswanson (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing administrator and discussants: During the course of this AfD, this article has been moved and/or redirected at least twice. The article under consideration is now called List of voice types. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider a name change. It seems it is an adjunct to the infobox on the page, but more comprehensive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why should this be kept? As I have pointed out this list is factually inaccurate. Soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, tenor, etc. are not vocal ranges but voice types. Further, the only possible name change would be to List of voice types which seems redundant since the voice type article already provides this information. Nrswanson (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Below Coments – Excellent points :Nrswanson I can’t argue with you, you’re right. And as this information is already contained in voice type's, no need for any type of merge. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nrswanson and Shoessss are missing the original purpose of this article, thanks in part to it being renamed in 2006, then afterwards edited by well-intentioned editors to match the new name. Originally the article title was List of opera singers, and originally it was a list of lists, listing lists of opera singers by voice type, such as Contralto#Notable contraltos and Mezzo-soprano#Coloratura mezzo-soprano singers. Note that Opera#See also links here as "List of Opera singers by ranges".

    So the question to answer, not addressed by the rationales above, which are addressing the wrong subject and then accusing the article of not matching it, is whether a list of opera singers organized by voice type, or a list of such lists, is in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. You are incorrect Uncle G; a list of opera singers was never a part of this article's content. The original title was List of vocal ranges [8] which was created in 2004. A seperate List of opera singers was deleted/redirected into this article in 2006 [9], although the content of the opera list was not added to this one and the vocal range list not altered much during the time of the merger [10]. Further, vocal range/voice type are certainly terms not limmited to opera singers. I therefore fail to see how this issue has any bearing on this discussion. I think we should evaluate the article as it is now, which is not much different from when it was created over fours years ago.Nrswanson (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. You can see where this article was renamed from List of opera singers in its edit history. You even linked to the rename edit yourself. Don't be confused by the fact that prior revisions always show up with the current article title, even if the title has changed in the interim.

        What we have is an article that was renamed on the grounds that it was "misnamed", even though its name was List of opera singers and its first sentence at the time was "The following articles contain lists of female opera singers:", which later editors tried to refactor to match the new name that they saw in the new title, that was originally a list of lists (as was explicitly stated in its text), and that is still linked-to as a list of lists from other articles.

        We always take article history into account in deletion discussions, by the way. Otherwise vandals could get articles deleted by slowly vandalising them beyond recognition and then nominating them for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I completely overlooked the redirect and apologize. Now we are talking two separate issues, joined by a mistake. Regarding a list of opera singers listed by voice type, and titled as such. yes, I would support such a list. However, this is not that list. Concerning changing my opinion on the deletion of this article List of vocal ranges, no, it still stands. As it is now titled and the information it now represents it is not only misleading, it is wrong and contains information already listed in vocal types, where it should be. The redirects currently in place should be eliminated. The articles that are now blue linked to this piece will just to be red linked, until a correct list, with the correct title can be created and posted. Happy to help and or listen to other suggestions. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So simply renaming this article back to its original title and reverting the changes back to its original content would render it something that you would support? You don't have a rationale for deletion. You have a rationale for cleanup. If ordinary editing tools that every editor with an account has can fix the problem, then it's not a deletion issue, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - OK, maybe I am being stupid tonight, and this won‘t be the first or last time it happened! But when looking at the history of List of vocal ranges the only name I see is List of vocal ranges. However, like you pointed out I do see where a article labeled List of opera singers was redirected to List of vocal ranges. Am I correct here? If so, what I am saying is delete List of Vocal ranges and start, or restart, a piece labeled List of opera singers. Which I would happily start. ShoesssS Talk 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. It's not a redirect. It's a page move. Two history entries, this and this, result from a page move; and after a page move all of the prior versions of the article appear as if they were always under the new title. (Try looking at old versions of any page that has been renamed.) And it can be renamed back, without needing any administrator tools. You, or any other editor with an account could do it. You could do it right now, during this discussion. (We've long since fixed the {{subst:afd1}} template so that this is feasible. It used not to be.) Happily starting the article would simply comprise your hitting the edit button, and editing the page, once it is then back at its old title. You wouldn't even have to start completely from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following you now Uncle G. I wasn't aware that the article history wouldn't show a difference in name. So... the title from 2004- May 2006 was List of opera singers. However, I would argue that the content of the article has never been a "list of opera singers" but a "list of voice types" and the article was therefore improperly titled. The renaming to List of vocal ranges was also bad and did not accurately reflect the content. As it is, I think a list of voice types (which is the article's content both now and historically) is useless per my reasoning above. However, an actual list of opera singers linking to articles on opera singers could have some benefit depending on its basis for inclusion and organization. Its an awefully broad topic and it would need to be developed with thought beyond a mere haphazard list of names. I personally think organizing them under voice type would be less useful than perhaps a chronological organization or a structure linking singers to a particular genre or era of opera such as bel canto or verismo. My only issue with this solution is that the content would be completely new and different from what we have now, making it essentially an entirely different article. My understanding of AFD policy is that an article requiring such an extensive rewrite is deleted unless an enterprising editor steps forward before this discussion is over. Right now I am keeping my vote as delete since the history of this article's content has never actually had a list of opera singers and its content both now and in the past is merely redundant to the content aleady found in the voice type article.Nrswanson (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah learn something new everyday! Thank you! I made the move, or should I say redirect, back to the original title. ShoesssS Talk 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have moved the page to "List of voice types" as this article's content is a list of voice types. These terms are not opera specific so I don't think "List of opera singers" is an accurate or appropriate title. I still think this article is redundant to the voice type article and should be deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - Hello Nrswanson I believe you are fighting a battle after you already won the war :-). I made the reverts as recomended by Uncle G and the title List of vocal ranges was automaticly deleted when the revert took place. So in other words you are asking to delete a title that has already been deleted. I believe that was the point Uncle G was trying to make, but wanted us to find this out on our own for the next time we run accross this situation. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the navbox that accompanies the page - assuming this is now/still "List of voice types". P.S. It's not a good idea to change article titles in the middle of an Afd. - --Kleinzach 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Voice type. The problem with the naming of the article has now been fixed. Mdwh (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has now been moved to List of voice types. Note that it really is not a good idea to re-name and redirect articles during an AfD, especially twice! It makes the discussion very confusing both for the particpants and for the closing administrator. Independent lists of the type "List of operatic baritones", "List of operatic sopranos", etc. do not exist and would be extremely impractical. Wikipedia has at least 1500 of biographies of opera singers with nearly 700 for operatic sopranos alone. Presumably they are all notable since they have articles in Wikipedia. The "Voice type" articles do mention some examples of singers of each type, but that is not their main purpose or content. They are to explain the meaning of the various terms used for voice types and the factors that go into typing a voice. As for the Opera#See_also - "List of Opera singers by ranges", it is misleadingly phrased both in terms of "range" vs. "type" and in terms of what it means. I take it to mean lists of types of opera singer voices, not lists of actual opera singers. So what is the purpose of this article now? It contains no actual information, it is largely, but not completely redundant to its own navbox. But in its present revised form could serve as a useful target for Opera#See_also - "List of voice types". Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke Road

Pembroke Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Non-notable road Balloholic (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having an embassy on a road doesn't make the road notable. Confusing title too - how many pembroke roads must there be? I found 3 in London and one each in Bristol and Paignton on the first 2 google pages. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The embassy doesn't make the road itself that notable, and it wouldn't pass WP:50k in any other way. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is expanded to establish notability within the time limit for the AFD. If kept it should be Pembroke Road, Dublin (which currently redirects to this article), because there are other roads of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine Avenue

Serpentine Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - Non-notable avenue Balloholic (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find any reliable sources to establish notability, except this: [11] - a statury instrument of the Irish Government ordering the building of a level crossing. All the rest of the ghits are for estate agents. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's the site of a historical landmark. - Mgm|(talk) 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The landmark is notable, the street does not appear to be - in fact, the Serpentine Avenue in the city where I live would appear to be just as notable (that doesn't deserve an article either). Not up to WP:50k standard. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is expanded to establish notability within the time limit for the AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep). As for the comment the nominator directed toward DGG: bad form, mate. DGG is a librarian and a wikipedian of high regard; his input into the discussion as to the typical contents of books, is from his professional expertise. But I would also scold you for such a dismissive un uncivil tone to an IP editor with only 1 edit in his/ her contributions. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Rogerson's Quay (Dublin)

AfDs for this article:
Sir John Rogerson's Quay (Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Non - notable quay Balloholic (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Prosified maps are not articles. - Mgm|(talk) 00:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- see my comments on the Britain Quay (Dublin) AFD. It would be useful if this stub at least said who Sir John Rogerson was. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Dublin Quay streets to Dublin quays per Perterkingiron. These are two major continuous streets on the north and south banks of the River Liffey that are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life. As common in European cities, one continuous street can have many name designations (ie Oxford Street and New Oxford Street). Changed to Keep per sources on this individual Dublin quay found below. --Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Reply - As I said, are they actually notable, how, why and where? I don't think a merge would be much use because they are not notable anyway. A Merge is only overlooking the issue and does not really sort the problem. --Balloholic (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life. They even date back to the Viking times. [12] Just a 2 second g-books search found several history books chapters devoted to the Quays of Dublin [13][14]. And according to Architects Journal "The quays are among Dublin's greatest urban assets..." [15] Just by a Wikipedia user calling major historic significant thoroughfares in a major capitol "non notable" doesn't magically make it so. --Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another quick search shows the quays are considered "famous" (something inheretnly obvious). [16] --Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Surely, but aren't they also major integral parts of the history and daily life of any place all over the world. They don't deserve articles of their own. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Prosified maps are not articles.--Balloholic (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually major historic significant thoroughfares in major capitols do deserve articles. Those are prime examples of what encyclopedias are for. The histories, politics, geography, future plans, etc. are all what should be written about of significant places like these. Just because a new article is only a stub with minimal information doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved and expanded.--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it should not be deleted but should it have even began. Wikipedia is not a map, nor an atlas for that matter. It would be unwise to think it necessary to create articles for every road, street or lane in Dublin - just because it is historic. Every place on this earth is historic in its own right but do they all deserve articles? Does Jim's Lane in Nilbud deserve an article because there is a church, a factory, a shoe shop, a butcher, a sex shop, an ice rink, a shopping centre or a chemist located there. I certainly don't think so. But hey, that's my opinion...--Balloholic (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have an WP:ALLORNOTHING mentality. Well, if you believe major historic thoroughfares in major capitols shouldn't have articles just because you don't want streets in Nilbud to have articles, so be it. For the rest of us, we judge the significance of of topics based on their specific significance, not the theoretical existence of articles on obscure topics that have nothing to do with it. (I dare you to AfD Victoria Embankment and The Embarcadero (San Francisco) for the same reasons.) --Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this rule -WP:50k. According to this Dublin should have 10 articles on its streets. The city has a population of 500000, ie, the major thoroughfares. As for All or nothing. Excuse me. No. Obviously I am not willing to delete notable streets such as O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Henry Street, Dame Street. They are the cities major thoroughfares and they should be included in its 10 street articles. Hear me. This is just an un notable quay --Balloholic (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small opinion essay written mostly by one user is not in any manor a "rule". If such a silly rule existed, by all means the Dublin Quays would be included in the hypothetical limited amount of Dublin street articles. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it simply an essay, not a rule - but it is one that is used by a large number of editors to determine some rule-of-thumb notability in cases where there is doubt. The fact that it was mainly written by one editor (me) is largely irrelevant - the important thing is how many editors regard it as a useful guideline, and how well it seems to work as an approximation for what is or is not worthy of an article. As User:Iridescent noted here: I can confirm from experience that... [WP:50k] ...does get cited by WP:UKRD and WP:HWY all the time as a de facto policy.
I will add, though, that under WP:50k, Dublin would not be limited to simply 10 roads as Balloholic suggests - it would be limited to 10 that do not have any notability other than that given by their importance within the city. That is, if there are 25 inherently notable streets in Dublin, WP:50k suggests that the city should have articles on up to 35 streets - the 25 that are notable in their own right, plus the city's 10 most important streets. In this specific case, unless Sir John Rogerson's Quay is one of Dublin's ten most important streets, it needs some indication of intrinsic notability before it deserves an article. The question remains - does it have that notability? Grutness...wha? 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Ireland and I would think that Dublin does not have even 25 notable streets.--Balloholic (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Dame Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street, Talbot Street are the more major of the cities streets. They form the main arterial route in the city whereas the quays are merely backstreets/minor streets with no significance in comparison. I also do not think the quays are deserving of their own articles. They are insignificant and give no encyclopedic value. The streets mentioned above along with about three or four others are the most famous and historical of the cities streets but I think that the quays and many of the numerous other city streets are just everyday normal streets. --Balloholic (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how a major central Dublin thoroughfares on both banks of River Liffey are backstreets/minor streets. As for passing WP:NOTABILITY, besides the significant sources mentioned above, there is extensive history and description of the Dublin quays in The Story of Dublin [17], published in 1907 no less. Your opinion that the quays don't pass WP:N is noted, but is not based on reality.--Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are biggish but not MAJOR like the streets I mentioned above. Perhaps you are not from Ireland. You may be missing my point. My opinion...But how are they notable. Is John Domino's Quay, a major thoroughfare, in the village of Cliones notable. Does a history book give a fair account. Sure I could publish a book tomorrow telling of the history of Cloines but that would only be one reference. Why is this quay so notable in its own right. Proof of notability to give us reliability.--Balloholic (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Streets can be notable for any number or reasons (see the non-major Lombard Street (San Francisco) for example). If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to discount significant coverage in historic books as evidence of notability, you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not try to push your agenda in individual AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created Dublin quays so the conversation about the existence of that article is now off-topic here.--Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have significant coverage or any reliable references, that is the problem. --Balloholic (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above is the most commonsense and obvious solution unless the quay can be established as notable in its own right in the same way as Eden Quay and Wood Quay have been approved as notable by me. The author of Dublin quays has solved this part of the larger problem by combining all the notable points of the quays together. This is much more effective than a line on every quay. As the cause of this discussion and now the agreer to the one article solution I think the argument is over from my point of view. However you are welcome to try me because I love you all really. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, Atlases and gazetteers have traditionally been part of encyclopedias, and typically do include maps of large cities. The guideline is woefully inadequate, and I propose to increase the number 10 fold for major capitals of literary significance & historic importance. By my standard its sufficiently important & therefore notable.DGG (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's your standard. I'm sorry but no one else cares. We're too busy having sense. --Balloholic (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG is one of the most respected and knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia and most care about his standards and, as addressed here, standards of encyclopedias and sense.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Negative Reply - Remember, a Google search does not prove an article's notability. --Balloholic (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain Quay (Dublin)

Britain Quay (Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Non-notable quay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloholic (talk • contribs)

  • Delete No information that cannot be gleaned from maps: no history, no construction information. The only information that qualifies as possibly notable is the mention of a tower that is not yet constructed. - Mgm|(talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This and other articles on Dublin Quays to form a single article on Dublin quays. The present article is a mere stub, as is that on the next quay. This could provide useful historical information concerning the port of Dublin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Dublin Quay streets to Dublin quays per Perterkingiron. These are two major continuous streets on the north and south banks of the River Liffey that are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life. As common in European cities, one continuous street can have many name designations (ie Oxford Street and New Oxford Street). --Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Reply - But are they actually notable, how, why and where? I don't think a merge would be much use because they are not notable anyway. Merging does not really sort the problem.--Balloholic (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life. They even date back to the Viking times. [18] Just a 2 second g-books search found several history books chapters devoted to the Quays of Dublin [19][20]. And according to Architects Journal "The quays are among Dublin's greatest urban assets..." [21] Just by a Wikipedia user calling major historic significant thoroughfares in a major capitol "non notable" doesn't magically make it so. --Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another quick search shows the quays are considered "famous" (something inheretnly obvious). [22] --Oakshade (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Surely, but aren't they also major integral parts of the history and daily life of any place all over the world. They don't deserve articles of their own. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Prosified maps are not articles.--Balloholic (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually major historic significant thoroughfares in major capitols do deserve articles. Those are prime examples of what encyclopedias are for. The histories, politics, geography, future plans, etc. are all what should be written about of significant places like these. Just because a new article is only a stub with minimal information doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved and expanded.--Oakshade (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it should not be deleted but should it have even began. Wikipedia is not a map, nor an atlas for that matter. It would be unwise to think it necessary to create articles for every road, street or lane in Dublin - just because it is historic. Every place on this earth is historic in its own right but do they all deserve articles? Does Jim's Lane in Nilbud deserve an article because there is a church, a factory, a shoe shop, a butcher, a sex shop, an ice rink, a shopping centre or a chemist located there. I certainly don't think so. But hey, that's my opinion...--Balloholic (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have an WP:ALLORNOTHING mentality. Well, if you believe major historic thoroughfares in major capitols shouldn't have articles just because you don't want streets in Nilbud to have articles, so be it. For the rest of us, we judge the significance of of topics based on their specific significance, not the theoretical existence of articles on obscure topics that have nothing to do with it. (I dare you to AfD Victoria Embankment and The Embarcadero (San Francisco) for the same reasons.) --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


See this rule -WP:50k. According to this Dublin should have 10 articles on its streets. The city has a population of 500000, ie, the major thoroughfares. As for All or nothing. Excuse me. No. Obviously I am not willing to delete notable streets such as O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Henry Street, Dame Street. They are the cities major thoroughfares and they should be included in its 10 street articles. Hear me. This is just an un notable quay --Balloholic (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small opinion essay written mostly by one user is not in any manor a "rule". If such a silly rule existed, by all means the Dublin Quays would be included in the hypothetical limited amount of Dublin street articles. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Rogerson's Quay (Dublin) Grutness...wha? 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Dame Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street, Talbot Street are the more major of the cities streets. They form the main arterial route in the city whereas the quays are merely backstreets/minor streets with no significance in comparison. I also do not think the quays are deserving of their own articles. They are insignificant and give no encyclopedic value. The streets mentioned above along with about three or four others are the most famous and historical of the cities streets but I think that the quays and many of the numerous other city streets are just everyday normal streets.--Balloholic (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how a major central Dublin thoroughfares on both banks of River Liffey are backstreets/minor streets. As for passing WP:NOTABILITY, besides the significant sources mentioned above, there is extensive history and description of the Dublin quays in The Story of Dublin [23], published in 1907 no less. Your opinion that the quays don't pass WP:N is noted, but is not based on reality.--Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are biggish but not MAJOR like the streets I mentioned above. Perhaps you are not from Ireland. You may be missing my point. My opinion...But how are they notable. Is John Domino's Quay, a major thoroughfare, in the village of Cliones notable. Does a history book give a fair account. Sure I could publish a book tomorrow telling of the history of Cloines but that would only be one reference. Why is this quay so notable in its own right. Proof of notability to give us reliability.--Balloholic (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Streets can be notable for any number or reasons (see the non-major Lombard Street (San Francisco) for example). If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to discount significant coverage in historic books as evidence of notability, you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not try to push your agenda in individual AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created Dublin quays so the conversation about the existence of that article is now off-topic here.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have significant coverage or any reliable references, that is the problem. --Balloholic (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above is the most commonsense and obvious solution unless the quay can be established as notable in its own right in the same way as Eden Quay and Wood Quay have been approved as notable by me. The author of Dublin quays has solved this part of the larger problem by combining all the notable points of the quays together. This is much more effective than a line on every quay. As the cause of this discussion and now the agreer to the one article solution I think the argument is over from my point of view. However you are welcome to try me because I love you all really. But no crystalballing on the U2 Tower either please. It violates this rule already. --Balloholic (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That rule is a personal preference of one particular editor, and not even intended as policy. And there is a reference--its impt enough that Crystal isn't relevant. I am getting tempted to write a subpage of my own called User:DGG/5k, give it a suitable redirect , such as STREETS, and hope people start quoting it. It may not be in time to save Dublin,but there's the rest of the world to consider. DGG (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! You think smartly (and correctly!) For Dublin is just the beginning! Soon the whole world will be MINE! (that policy has been used by many established editors - and an unbuilt tower inhabited by a drummer, two guitarists and a ricketty old preacherman is not exempt from crystalball) --Balloholic (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. RMHED (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Negative Reply - Remember, a Google search does not prove an article's notability. --Balloholic (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bosher

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

Up and coming actor/producer, but not sure if he's (yet) notable. rootology (C)(T) 15:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Street

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

Typical street, with no particular notability. rootology (C)(T) 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – This particular street is the address of the University of Syracuse, which in and by itself delineates a certain degree of notability to the street itself. Likewise, the city of Syracuse approved and spent the largest amount of money on a public works project in the city's history on upgrading this street in 2005. Thus establishing notability. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi... notability is based on sourcing, the same as any other subject. There's only one source presently talking about the street's name, but not itself. Are there multiple non-trivial sources discussing the street? I'd happily withdraw if they were found and added. rootology (C)(T) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – Not a problem, here is a partial list, under a very specific search criteria [24] which shows articles from the The Post Standard to the New York Times. Over the weekend, I’ll add some of the more respected publications as in-line cites and references and also expand slightly, as with regards to the public works project. That will more than satisfy the notabilty guidelines, As a side note, typically you are right, most streets are not notable in and of themselves. However, if you note in reading the article, and it names a University or Landmark or Historical Site on that road, 999 out of 999 times, that road is going to be notable. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Google search result page is not a source citation. Indeed, there's no guarantee that everyone else even sees the same search results that you did. Cite actual sources, don't just point to search results that happen to include a phrase. What you did isn't research, and is of zero value to AFD. (The first result that comes up for me is an obituary of a Spanish poet, and not a source discussing this subject, for example.) Actual source citations, of published works that document this subject (rather than that just happen to contain two words) are of value. You have not actually demonstrated notability at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you. But if you notice I didn’t just show the Google News search results. I actually went back to the article and referenced the piece. Regarding the notability I used the largest public works project in the city’s history. Which I also cited. I typically try and do that with any of my Keep votes. Do I do it for everyone no, but a majority. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 09:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I do agree that roads containing landmarks or historic sites tend to be notable, but most references in the list you mentioned were trivial references where the street was named in an unrelated context. It needs sources to back up the material in it. - Mgm|(talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- This appears to be an article on a neighbourhood, in the firm of one concerning a street. If retained the directory of businesses on it should be removed. This sort of information is better on a city website, which a public authority will maintain. WP is not a directory. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The principal street a major university is on will generally be notable, as enough things will have happened there to get in the papers, and they become well know generally, even outside the college. I'd extend this only to major universities and colleges, particularly historic ones. Some of the largest universities may have more than one, but in that case there will almost certainly be sources for notability (Im thinking here of Harvard and UC Berkeley). DGG (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Oxfeld

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

Non-notable person - prod was removed by original author so bringing to AfD instead ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Non-notable businessperson and school magazine writer. There are plenty of them. Please. Come on. --Balloholic (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... are the Dublin Shopping Centers so important? Mr. Oxfeld has accomplished much in this relatively new industry and should be noted for his accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.202.131 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garratt Lane

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

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or special road. rootology (C)(T) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw per comments from DonJay and some more digging around; the sources are out there but need adding is all. rootology (C)(T) 16:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could do with an edit, but this particular street/road appears to be the location of several notable buildings which means it is of historic significance. - Mgm|(talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request that it is not deleted. The argument "it is not particularly notable" can be used against many pages of an encyclopedia (especially biographic entries), which to single individuals may be of little interest. The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to provide on all subjects. This entry supports the one for the "Mayor of Garratt", but more importantly it describe a long and historic route in the poorer part of London. DonJay (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An English urban road 4km long with a single name applying to it is likely to be of minor notability. However, it is better to have articles on localities rather than single roads. If kept, it should have a disambiguator added to the name (such as South London), as I suspect there will be other English Roads with this or similar names. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wix's Lane

AfDs for this article:
Wix's Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or special road. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The single source provided proves the road exists, but does not help in establishing notability. - Mgm|(talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another non WP:50k road. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not think this is an article on a locality mascerading as on a street. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above comments. --Balloholic (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southcroft Road

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

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or special road. rootology (C)(T) 14:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article shows it's a road, but that's it. It says nothing that can't be seen on maps, apart from the fact it has buses which doesn't make the road notable. If there are no specific agreed upon guidelines, the WP:GNG applies and this hasn't got any sources specifically discussing the road that I can find. - Mgm|(talk) 23:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another non WP:50k road. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is insufficient information to be worth merging with the locality, which is often a good solution for articles on NN local facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to World of Warcraft#Game addiction. MBisanz talk 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction to World of Warcraft

Addiction to World of Warcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doubtful on notability specific to this game, possibly notable to the entire MMO genre of games. Reads like an OR essay. rootology (C)(T) 14:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this can easily be merged, then why are you voting to delete? - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The page could also merge easily into the World of Warcraft page itself, doesn' that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.241.147 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of television channels

Lists of television channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list aims to catalog all the other lists about television channels in a country, language or region. The problem is, since its inception five full years ago, it has always been neglected. In fact, in stucture it has not changed one bit from when it was originally created [25]. It's extremely poorly maintained, with many wrong links and listing old pages turned redirects. How could it be any different when there are categories, self-maintained, correctly subdivided and easier to consult? Maybe Wikipedia didn't have this category system when it was created, I don't know. All I know is that this page, today, is totally pointless. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Update it by all means, but this is a useful bit of organization. Unless or until Wikipedia consensus bans the lists featured (I only see bluelinks), having an overall list is perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: again, why should I or anyone alse do that? Let the bots do the listing, so we can focus our time on building an encyclopedia. There are many lists needing human intervention, not this one. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real need to delete. Now if there were a proposal to delete all lists, I might buy that, but such does not appear to be the case. Collect (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to delete every list on Wikipedia, but having a list of television stations is foolish, think about it: would anyone create a list of all books ever written just because it would be uselful? There are tens of thousands of tv stations in the world, the only way is categorizing. And even if you left the list as it is what makes you think it will be updated, if it wasn't in the last five years?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some people like to use lists, some people like to use categories, but we all like to be able to navigate through the information. There's room for both means of seeing what's on Wikipedia. In answer to the question about neglect, I honestly don't see the need to update the entries if they are redirects to other articles (List of Norwegian television channels redirects to Television in Norway, for instance). To say "the only way is categorizing" is to say that there is only one right way to look for information. Quoting from WP:LIST, "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic." Wikipedia does not require choosing between one or the other. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standard navigational aid. It helps navigate pages like List of television stations in the United Kingdom which offer information that cannot be categorized (WP:CLN). The reason it hasn't been edited for so long, is probably because it didn't need much changing. Regardless, a lack of work on a page is not a valid reason for deletion unless the contents are blatantly false. (WP:NOEFFORT) - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a simple case where WP:SOFIXIT applies to double redirects, and I only see one redlink on the page. There is no neglect that I see beyond the fact there's not much to update (unless some nation suddely makes Pig Latin their official language and requires a broadcaster to use it), and there is no rule about having multiple paths to the same information; in my eyes as long as you can get to it whether by direct or Google search, what links here, templates or inline links from other articles, it reflects the fact that all information here is bonded together. Article lethargy is not a cause for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 13:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Concur with all the keeps above and this debate should be closed before the snowball WP:SNOW runs over Piccolo.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, a7 nonnotable. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Clarke (World record holder for eating a Macdonalds happy meal with the least bites)

John Clarke (World record holder for eating a Macdonalds happy meal with the least bites) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Almost) no content; pretty unremarkable. I'm hesitant to put it up for CsD, as it doesn't meet the conditions. Imperat§ r(Talk) 13:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy under A3 (an article with no content).
  • Speedy delete Sad attempt at "humour" Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypomanic - Mad In England, A Memoir

Hypomanic - Mad In England, A Memoir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Victor J Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unable to find anything to assert notability per WP:BK. No sign of any awards, the only google hits seem to be advertising links, press releases and requests for reviews to be written. CultureDrone (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest we add Victor J Kennedy as well. The article says: "Victor J Kennedy (born June 27, 1972 in Bradford) is an British writer and art director renowned for his work in the confessional memoir genre." I doubt that claim holds ground if he wrote just one book that didn't get reviewed. - Mgm|(talk) 13:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Above notability concerns about sum it up. Also, as a possible hoax, though I doubt it is. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - A hoax seems highly unlikely, but there seems to be serious concerns about notability. Neither the article or the first 4 pages of Google had any third party reliable sources. If we delete this, we probably should delete the linked Victor J Kennedy as well, on grounds of failing the inclusion guideline. NW's Public Sock (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Currently a problem for me, should be fixed. It is messed up, It dosen't need deletion, it should be improved. And it has already been CSD'd so close. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandee

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

Search for "Sandee" seems to be almost nothing, only get hits in "Sandee dead hollywood florida" about 6 hits, and those seem to be fan sites. Anyway, delete this, they claim she is an "Icon" but search turns up none. Oh yes, article is copy-vio. Anyway, seems to be failing WP:MUSIC. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This just rematerialized after being speedied for lacking assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as stated. tgies (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This a bio on a deceased recording artist formerly recorded for Columbia Records now Sony Music and on Arista Records as a original member of the Grammy nominated music group Expose.

Sandee had a string of Billboard Dance hits back in the late eighties and early nineties. Her biggest hit was the C&C Music Factory hit "Notice Me". All the tracks she had recorded can be found here:

List of Sandee Hits

Sandly, Sandee died on Monday at the young age of 46 years old. The fans of music would appreciate a place to learn of her success and passing.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandee"

Don't be so heartless! Do some research on SANDEE and het hit record "Notice Me" by C&C Music Factory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newartist (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources provided to establish the claimed notability. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ml iPod

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

Article does not establish notability. Software has been abandoned by its first authors for native support in Winamp, so any claim to notability was in the past. News.google.com shows 9 hits, 6 are repeats, two are German translations, and one from Wired. All are blurb length mentions, not even minor coverage. No major edits in more than six months. Tagged as unreferenced for more than six months. Largest section reads like a how-to and tips guide. Except for a comparison chart, this article has no incoming links. One sentence "An alternative plugin, Ml iPod also allows iPod management" could be added to the Winamp article. Miami33139 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:Notability if something had notability originally it does not lose that notability after time. I'd like to see a citation that the existence of this plugin prompted Winamp to include native iPod support in their product which would make this into a strong keep.Raitchison (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources show that it EVER had notability? It did not. Miami33139 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Any software that allows something other than iTunes to talk to an iPod is probably notable, but sourcing is really needed. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I think the same as Stifle, without sources the article does not establish notability, and can therefore be deleted. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merely being out of development or superceded by other software does not make it unnotable. Cynical (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What made it notable in the first place? Miami33139 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is notable in that it's one of the few WinAMP plugins that will work with the new 4th gen Nano. It will become even more relevant in the future, and reports that it's no longer being developed are incorrect. In fact, it just had a major release. It is currently the preeminent non-iTunes interface for the iPod. And according to wikipedia: when in doubt, keep. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You assert five facts. All unsourced. Just like the article. Wikipedia default is to remove unsourced material. Miami33139 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Khan

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

No indication of notability Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. by Will Beback. Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefrescott

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

Ghits all point to the user's own web page. No evidence of secondary sources; fails WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete biographical no assertion of notability. I've gone ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. tgies (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Self-created vanity page. Graymornings(talk) 08:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per WP:Snow amongst many other reasons to not waste more time on this ;( Skier Dude (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham (film)

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

Gotham has not started principal photography; Eddie Murphy, etc. casting is a fake rumor. Fails WP:NFF. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I read about it in the newspaper this morning and they clearly marked it as a rumor. Not enough verifiable information for an article yet. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that. He's gonna be too tied up with his last year of Doctor Who. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they started filming in January for the 2009 specials, they'd finish filming by Easter. Most of the series 4 episodes were filmed in Autumn 2007. Sceptre (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's also playing the lead role of Hamlet, which has recently moved to London. That's why there's only four special episodes of Doctor Who in 2009. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. This movie is not out yet, and even if we do know Christian Bale is going to be Batman, who cares at the moment? Wait until the movie is being marketed, I say. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt if needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; aside from Bale being contracted for a third film, all content in the article is unverifiable and speculative. News coverage about a possible third film is already put together at Batman (film series)#Future. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article is premature and currently fails WP:NFF as WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps a mention of the rumour might be made in the Batman films article(s), but there is not enough as yet to support a seperate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. — neuro(talk) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source of the rumor was based on this article by The Sun, which is full of ridiculous casting rumors and is pretty much designed to sell papers. I think we can call this a flight of fancy by a bored writer. 13:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Manaway

AfDs for this article:
David Manaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Kings of Garthia

List of the Kings of Garthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article subject seems to fail the general notability criterion, no reliable sources (just a YouTube link). HaeB (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (A7) as clearly unremarkable web material. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relistings, the consensus appears to be against the article again, and the analysis by Smerdis of Tlön appears to support that conclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Web Media

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

Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Web Media (resulted in speedy delete) Seems to be reasonably cleaned up, but I'm not convinced it makes it on the wp:corp notability front. --fvw* 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werneth (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) The company is linked to from a Wikipedia entry relating to Des Kelly, this shorter entry was submitted to cover off the link. Additional information of notability could be added in respect to national awards won but these were not put in initially in case they were considered advertising. Advice appreciated.[reply]

Werneth (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Added references to Fast Search & Transfer and Microsoft to increase notability[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person before you mentioned 4 sources. Why are those not reliable in your opinion? - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 06:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is an obvious example of WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the article fairly carefully to check if I missed something, I still have no idea what this business actually does, other than claiming to be a full service digital agency, whatever that means. The "references" given are to an internal site and to a list of regulatory filings: they do not obviously support the assertions made in the article. This is a non-notable, non-consumer tech business, and as such it fits the profile. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cougar. MBisanz talk 02:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courgar

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

I have no idea what this article is about, I think it is about a neologism. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemy

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

Frenemy is an uncommon neologism which does not describe a novel concept. Ringbang (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — new terms are okay, as long as they are reliably sourced, in which this one is. MuZemike (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources provided give enough notability to the word for it to be appropriate along notable guidelines, but I wonder if it should be included at all, as it is really just a definition. It doesn't really matter if any one of us subjectively thinks the concept of the neologism is "novel," but we should instead think about whether its history/creation/usage warrant an encyclopedic entry because of some impact it has made on society. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this one, Neutral.SMSpivey (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The word has been used by multiple independent people and the article goes beyond a mere definition, it mentions occurances and events related to the term. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hi everyone, please consult the Wikipedia policy pages Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research, and then read the article more closely. The article consists of original research, with citations that only list individuals who have used the term. Per Wikipedia policy, qualifying a neologism is not about establishing broad usage (although this article would still fail to make that case), but rather to document a word based on reliable, scholarly sources. Qualifying secondary sources include scholarly works that are about the term, not samples of usage. This is a good practice to endorse because it helps to ensure an accurate, thoughtful definition with a solid foundation, rather than one that's largely speculative and subjective. In this particular case, an example of a qualifying source might be a book or paper about applied game theory or corporate politics, possibly written by a sociologist. After you remove the original research, unverified claims, and the lists of examples of usage, what remains in the article is a single reference: a 2007 magazine article by Liz Ryan—which also doesn't qualify since it's an editorial! This word may qualify for Wikipedia inclusion someday, but for now it doesn't. Ringbang (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely agree with Ringbang's rationale given above. Popular culture usage of the word does not establish the word's notability for inclusion. The sections on People and Commercial relationships are more or less OR. This term belongs to Wiktionary, where it already exists. LeaveSleaves talk 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because something may be an editorial does not mean it is not a reliable source—editorials in major publications go through the same fact-checking procedures as other articles. Liz Ryan's Businessweek article is clearly significant coverage. But you want scholarly sources? "Sleeping with the 'Frenemy'; "Vascularization as a Potential Enemy in Valvular Heart Disease" ("A frenemy is an enemy disguised as a friend. This term is a recent addition to popular lexicon, but the concept is as old as history."); "The business strategy/corporate social responsibility 'mash-up' ("Neologisms like 'Coopetition' (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1997) and 'Frenemy' came into use to attempt to describe these new realities"). DHowell (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Bosnians

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

There is no such thing as ethnic Bosnians, besides the Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian-Serbs, Bosnian-Croats and Bosniaks in Bosnia are all "Bosnians". europemayhem (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bosniaks are of a particular cultural and religious heritage. I believe it's considered an ethnicity. Bosnian refers to people who live in Bosnia, but they can be Serbs or Croats or whatever, and don't have to be Bosniak.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Bosnians includes Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats - Bosnian and Bosniak are not synonymous. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there is a concept of Bosnian ethnicity popular with some liberal Bosnians who reject belonging to the Bosniak/Bosnian Serb/Bosnian Croat groups. See this source. That said, the article would need completely rewriting if it were kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry I'm wondering if this doesn't seem like a neologism in the academic context you presented? How is an ethnic Bosnian different from a Bosnian? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear an (educated) answer to ChildofMidnight's question before voting, or seeing this go to a vote. We must be educated before we vote on such things. Badagnani (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bosnian is a nationality, whereas an ethnic Bosnian in the sense meant in the article I linked to involves a rejection of the ethnic categories usually associated with Bosnian nationality and an assertion of a single Bosnian ethnicity. That's the way I see it. I can't find any other sources though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting subject. I think it would be good to include the relevant sourced content in the other articles (Bosnian, Bosnia, and maybe Bosniak) if other people agree it's significant. It doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article though, and also might add to confusion since it's a term that seems to have been invented in response to ethnic strife but isn't well established. Thanks for the discussion and your answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think your suggested solution sounds sensible. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, something like Lao (ethnolinguistic group) and Laotian (multiethnic national identity). There should be an easy way to fix that, however, without resorting to a deletion proposal. Merging or retitling in line with the Lao articles, or other ambiguously named groups would seem to work just fine. Let's utilize "Discussion" and put our heads together rather than resorting to such deletion proposals. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax that has been proven without a doubt. Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfport Mullet Hound

Gulfport Mullet Hound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:HOAX/WP:MADEUP and, therefore, non-notable. I was hesitant at first, but after doing some research, I have found the following; First, the article was created by Masonjeffers (talk · contribs), who was also named as one of the famous breeders of this "hound". Second, no such listing of breed in any known dog encyclopedia. Third, I have requested the author provide page numbers for several "sources", but these sources were then modified to something else. Finally, of the minimal internet searches that returned a search, these reveal that "mullet hound" is a slang term in regards to people with mullets. The article was de-proded by an IP that has also been changing the article around. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Further supporting Moeron's point, the photo used in the article is a pit bull -- not the mythical "Gulfport Mullet Hound." Good work, Moeron. Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G3) this benign attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia by creating utter horseshit. MuZemike (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If only our non-hoax pages were all written this well... Graymornings(talk) 08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddies(game)

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

Article fails WP:NEOLOGISM. A non-notable type of game. Dekisugi (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Googled about a bit. Read the discussion page and the guy says there are no notable sites he could find. Dream Focus (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and almost certainly unsourcable. Also, why was this relisted at 3-to-0 to delete? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put this article away, already! — to be less blunt, delete. It's a madeup game that is also unverifiable. MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with DRM

List of games with DRM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The list has zero encyclopedic valve. Even if it has little bit of encyclopedic valve the article will be highly unmaintainable. There are other sites (use search engine) which has this sort of list. SkyWalker (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Potentially useful list (I doubt I'll be purchasing any of these) but this is an overbroad and unmaintainable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no claims to what makes these games have DRM notable. TJ Spyke 05:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way, way too broad. List could potentially include most recently-published video games, depending on your definition of DRM. Not even Superman could maintain a list like this (not that he'd want to, I guess). Graymornings(talk) 08:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most recently published games have some form of copyright protection or Digital rights management. Such a list is completely unmaintainable. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, and unsourced. Since DRM has negative connotations with many, claiming a game has DRM when it does not (either by mistake or intentionally) could be dangerous. The fact games are copy protected is NN as this dates back to the 1970s. 23skidoo (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Which game doesn't? SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of notable games without DRM would be a much more interesting article. This one is pointless. JulesH (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs sources, but there is no reason to think these cannot be found - the article has only recently been created! The list is not unmaintainable, nor is there concerns of notability, so long as the list is kept to games that also have their own Wikipedia article. Even if it includes most games, it is still useful to categorise the type of DRM. Given that we have massive Lists such as List of blogs, Lists of websites or Lists of atheists, there is clearly not a maintenance problem. The list is useful - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument, nor should I have to search out other possible sites that might exist (can I edit and contribute to those sites?) Mdwh (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said we don't like it? It may be useful, but not here. MuZemike (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list is just too broad and unclear to be encyclopedic. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Decoutere

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. not much third party coverage [31]. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think you were looking in the wrong section. Fails WP:CREATIVE because she is an actor (actress) which is categorized under WP:ENTERTAINER. Also she played one of the main characters on a popular Canadian TV Show (7 seasons). Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Norton

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

A while ago, I proposed deletion of the article but the prod tag was removed. I still don't see a good reason to keep the article. It's about a local radio host and there are no third-party references on which to build an article. The article is promotional in tone and in fact has been heavily edited by Larrynorton97 (talk · contribs). (Incidentally this Larry Norton is notable if anyone wants to write a stub) Pichpich (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Some notability, but article needs a lot of work and there doesn't appear to be enough independent coverage to merit inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although there may be notability, it is indeed small and there is a great need for third-party references. The individual is simply not considered known or important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject lacks notability. Yes he's received some coverage for the Guiness world recordbut WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI was notified by a listener to our radio show that my biography is up for deletion. I don't know why, but I can attest to the fact that this a true and accurate summary of my life. I am still on the radio at WGRF 97 Rock in Buffalo, NY. Thank You, Larry Norton (reposting from discussion page) Posted there by user:Larrynorton97
    • Comment The issue isn't accuracy of the article but it's notability. Please see WP:BIO for the guidelines used in these discussions. If you can point us to some references that can be used to improve the article, editors will be glad to help out. It appears that you have contributed significantly to this article, instead please reach out to one of the editors here on this AFD or others who have contributed to the article in order to avoid WP:COI problems.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manx Electric Railway stations. MBisanz talk 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballajora Halt

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

Not really sure why we need an article on "another sleepy wayside halt on the Manx Electric Railway". Less than a page of unique Google results ([32]), none of them more then passing mention. I have been able to find basically no information on the subject, but, based of what the other halts look like on the Manx Electric Railway, its no more than a raised concrete platform. Icewedge (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. There's no chance of this closing any other way. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheening

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

Non-encyclopedic. This is a dictionary term (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary), that appears to be invented by the author (unable to locate other references to it), and presents no indication of notability of the subject term to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a growing term in popular culture. Used by many young viewers of ther show Two and a Half Men it is fair to say the term should be linked to the show, character and actor after whom the term has been created. Though a quick google search may not result in many hits as of yet the term is under review with urban dictionary and is expected to be added to the web site in the next few days. --Jilah (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Jilah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP - second vote: I agree to keep this definition. It will grow in length and detail as it becomes a popular definition itself. The World known Facebook Site also has a fairly professional Group called "The Sheen Academy" and speaks of this very thing. (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=39302849797&ref=mf)I would suggest keeping this definition.--JillianAWeedmark (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— JillianAWeedmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment To the two new editors who have come to support the article: Please read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, please read Wikipedia's "notability" guideline. Something is "notable" (worthy of having an encyclopedia article) if it has received significant coverage in "reliable sources". The Urban Dictionary and MySpace Facebook are not considered reliable sources. Please take a moment to familiarize yourselves with the guidelines I've linked to, and see whether you can find reliable sources that discuss the subject of "sheening". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - wikipedia is not a dictionary Clubmarx (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per everyone above. SMSpivey (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a place for non-notable neologisms. Even if these two things weren't an issue, the sources on the article are not substantial enough to confer notability on the subject. An example of a neologism whose definition is in Wikipedia because it is in fact notable is truthiness. Its article contains a bevy of third-party references which give it enough notability for the word to have its own story, beyond its definition. As for Sheening, for now it seems better left in Urban Dictionary.SMSpivey (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT an dictionary. Crystal ball prognostication that a term "will grow" is not an effective argument in AFD. Facebook is not a reliable source. Edison (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--another one. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not say the term will grow I stated that it is growing. Perhaps people are not up to date with current slang. Another reason for it to stay. It is a valid conversational word and though this is a defintion it should be linked to the show and the character. I am not relaying inacurate information. I also sugest you come up with a better reason than as per above. Come on people create your own arguments.--Jilah (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources or signs of notability (Urban Dictionary is a user edited dictionary that anyone can add words to). TJ Spyke 06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arcade games. Content under the merge. StarM 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title Fight

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

I'm not sure what the notability criteria are for video games, but this doesn't seem to assert any. It's been a stub forever and I can't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge There should be a list of arcade games if there isn't I think there is some encyclopedic merit to knowing what arcade games existed, even if some of them aren't notable independently. Maybe someone knows of a good article to merge to or wants to create one? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of arcade games, which if worked on would include a few fields such as release date and carry virtually the same information. Arcade games fall into two camps: the ones which are significant and thus covered/were ported or designed for home consoles or computers, and those with no sources to speak of. It's a Punch-Out! clone by Sega, which is surely worth noting on the list, but compared to games like R-Type and Street Fighter II which were released on countless formats (even the ZX Spectrum) there's nothing to build an article with. Someoneanother 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the aforementioned list. Whilst verifiable ([33]), article does not explain how the game is notable. The only magazine from the early 90s that I recall reviewing arcade games is C&VG. Interested parties may like to contact the VG Wikiproject's "magazines dept." Marasmusine (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Witdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker (MIT)

Bill Parker (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is a lack of sources to establish independent notability for Bill Parker, beyond his invention of the plasma lamp. I can find no non-trivial sources that would help expand the Parker article. He is notable only in relation to the plasma lamp (arguably a spiritual violation of WP:BIO1E, if not to the letter) and the information available is not sufficient to create a full, neutral biography on this individual. I suggested a merge/redirect but, as I was told, among other things, when attempting to discussing the merge, "Bill Parker is not a plasma lamp and is already mentioned in the plasma lamp article. Plasma lamp already contains everything that from the BP article that it needs to contain". I agree and "Bill Parker (MIT)" is not a likely search criterion for "plasma lamp" and "Bill Parker (disambiguation)" can easily direct people to the article if need be. Cheers, CP 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw Per new sources. Too bad they weren't present during the merge discussion; could have saved a lot of time. Cheers, CP 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Dravecky (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John P. McCormick

John P. McCormick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Fairly minor employee of the Chicago Tribune, whose website is the only source of information about him. The largest section is about the alleged effort of the governor to get him fired. Since this had no direct effect on him it should be at most a trivia item, if he was notable enough for an article that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically a WP:BLP1E case, where the only notability seems to come from McCormick being a figure in the Rod Blaojevich scandal. There is a great deal of coverage at the moment but it all appears to be only in the context of the Blagojevich scandal. An alldates googlenews search (which, as I understand it excludes the last 30 days), gives 113 hits[34] but all of them appear to be false positives. So there does not appear to be significant coverage of him pre-Blagojevich scandal. Perhaps could be redirected to Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases, for which this article is something of a content fork. Nsk92 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral for the moment in view of the source produced by Cbl62. Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep. He also got a 2003 Scripps award[35]. Together with the award mentioned in Cbl62's post below, that is enough to establish pre-Blagojevich notability. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the current content has some issues is not a reason to delete the article. It's a reason to improve the article. It is also a reason not to feature it on the main page in a DYK nomination. But the article should not be deleted. As for the assertion that McCormick is not notable, that seems contrary to the fact that a search for John McCormick and the Chicago Tribune on google pulls 83,600 hits. See, e.g., 2003 discussing McCormick as an example of the Best Newspaper Writing [36]. He was Newsweek's Midwest correspondent for 18 years and is a notable reporter/editor. In my opinion, notability is clear. Improve the article, yes. But it should not be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a plain google search like the one you cited is not a convincing proof of notability. If you can find sufficient specific examples of significant coverage of McCormick (rather than articles by him) by independent sources predating the Blagojevich scandal, I would certainly change my mind. But for now it does look like a WP:BLP1E case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have an unduly narrow view of notability. Did you look at the article I cited above? Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I missed it, my bad. Changing to neutral for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He also won the American Society of Newspaper Editors 2002 Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing, for his editorials on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Afghanistan War, the "Renaissance of Black Chicago", and plans for a new football stadium in Chicago.[37]
  • Keep. I agree with User:Cbl62, and in fact, I just added more content (and sources) in a good-faith effort to improve this article. McCormick is plenty notable and was notable well before the Blagojevich scandal. The issue with people whose careers largely predate the World Wide Web is that much of their most notable work is not easily searchable online. In my view, WP:BLP1E applies more to people balancing hot dogs on their noses, not longtime correspondents for major newsweekly magazines (who then write editorials for one of the nation's most influential newspapers). I agree with Cbl62 that notability is clear, and that the article could stand to be improved even more -- what I created with this article was a starting point, not a final work. Jarvishunt (talk) 19 December 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Jclemens. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Taylor

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

Does not meet inclusion guidelines. Speedy tag removed by article creator (I think). ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hirschfeld (voice actress)

Rachel Hirschfeld (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no suggestion that this voice actress meets the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. With respect to the works in in which the subject has performed that are included in IMDB:

  • they not extensively / nationally reviewed (if at all)
  • they have not won major awards
  • the article's subject doesn't even appear on the main cast page (with a couple of exceptions)

The Anime Dub Recognition Awards (which are monthly) cannot be said to be a claim of notability.

Likewise, the article doesn't suggest that the subject qualifies under the general notability guideline, as there is no significant coverage of her cited (I was unable to find any, either).

Bongomatic 14:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic 14:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She hasn't been noticed by the mainstream media, nor does the article have anything much to say about her, regardless of how well she seems to be at what she does. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was my general hope that the article could be used as an entry. However, one is always drawn back to importance based on Wikipedia criteria. At best, notability and reference use is poor.Royalhistorian (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--not notable enough. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Matt (Talk) 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoRouter

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

Non-notable software product without secondary source backing, but fails the blatant advertising test. 9Nak (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggetphase

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bands don't seem very notable either. Dios mio, que triste. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find any releases mentioned on music websites etc, even in Spanish or Dutch. Google hits soon descend into "my kids are at the chicken nugget phase" etc. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Schuym1 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galilee of the Nations

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The main sources that I could find for this company was trivial mentions in articles about the singers. Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There were multiple sources provided in this discussion that would appear to confirm the notability of the subject. And they've been there since the 17th. C'mon folks.. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta

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

I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that show his notability. The article appears to fail WP:BIO, specifically WP:CREATIVE, as he is not well known, and it doesn't appear that his works have been under significant attention. (This article was declined speedy deletion ({{db-bio}} on November 16 2008 [38]) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per myself. Juzhong (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough for inclusion, but in need of radical clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I read the entry over four times and went name searching on the Internet and other sources. The entry is weak, poorly written, lacks notability and is nearly absence of any independent source material. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If only wikipedians would learn to read their own debates. Juzhong (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be specially good if they learned to read them before they tried to censor comments from them. [39] Juzhong (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being poorly written isn't a reason to exclude it, however the first link in the references is broken and the third is a blog, so neither of them can be used. The second is in (according to the page "The Largest Circulated Daily of Jammu and Kashmir", which should qualify. I have a feeling that if some digging were done there could be some more sources to be found.--kelapstick (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The page as is would be was a direct copy from here, I am working on it.--kelapstick (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, I'm just not seeing non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. If coverage existed in triplicate somewhere I would be open to a change of mind. JBsupreme (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I need one of those template things. Juzhong (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.E.P.I.

S.E.P.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any significant secondary sources on this organization. Having worked with another org who worked on a Sci-Fi show doesn't really count, does it? Seems to fail WP:ORG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unfortunately. And it pains me to do so. As a former Navy sailor, myself, I know that sailors form a special bond with their ships, and I do not doubt the memory of the source for this article one bit. Meh. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beramba (ship)

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

I do not believe this article meets the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primarily the general notablilty guideline, as there is a lack of significan coverage in reliable sources.

The content is brief, and the only sources for the content I can find are the two interview transcripts listed as external links, and these are only brief mentions in hour-long interviews. Generic Google lists only 80 results for "beramba", with the majority of these being either Wikipedia mirrors of this article, content about the location in Madagascar, or unrelated to either. Searches of Scholar and Books come up with results falling into similar categories. Use of terms such as "ship" or "German" as qualifiers either return no results, or return results with no intersection between the terms. The official Australian World War I history (available through the Australian War Memorial) does not contain any mentions of a ship of this name (or if it does, Beramba is not listed in the indicies). In Chapter 18 of Volume 11, on page 627, an ex-German steamship called Bambra is mentioned, but as the text states the ship was too small for war transport duties and was instead lent to Western Australia as a replacement for a requesitioned ship, I doubt they are the same. General seraches of the Australian War Memorial nad Royal Australian Navy websites retuen no results for this ship's name.

I do not doubt that this ship existed and that the content is correct. However, I believe that there is not enough reliably sourced content out there to construct an article that meets our policies and guidelines. -- saberwyn 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are very likely to be many sources for this ship, just not readily available on the net. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Indeed there are likely to be sources for the ship, but the question is which ship? There's no record of a Beramba. I've added the article information and my original research speculation to the SS Omrah article discussion page. I think that's the ship in question. But as there is substantial proof this ship didn't exist, I think we can send her to the bottom! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as neither WP:V or WP:N are met. The article can always be recreated if sources can be found. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Great nomination Saberwyn, very thorough. But I'm happy with keeping small stubs like this, as long everything in the article is true, which your saying it is right? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am saying that I think it is true. The lack of verification through the use of multiple reliable sources is my main concern and my main reason for nomination. A single man's brief reminisces as part of two recorded interviews, while more reliable than most sources that can be found on the internet, should not be the sole basis for an entire article, particulary when no other sources can be found both online and in print (the abovelinked Official History and several other Australian military history texts in my possession). As Nick-D says, the article can always be recreated when/if additional sources are found. -- saberwyn 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, well you certainly have a point, if we can't verify it happened, then that's definitely not good. But, I'm still willing to take this article with a pinch a salt;
  • We suspect it's probably true
  • It's not controversial (I mean I know it claims 24 human beings died, but in the context of WW1, a drop in the ocean)
  • Is not violating BLP and it's just a stub (i.e. B-class referencing criteria)
I hope you don't think this is anything against you Saberwyn mate, it's just that I'm willing to give articles like this a bit of lenience. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, mate, I can agree to disagree on this matter. No offense taken. -- saberwyn 10:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ship may be the Omrah, and it has been transcribed incorrectly. See http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtroopships.htm ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But one of the facts presented in the article is that the ship was captured from the Germans - all of the ships on that list were requesitioned and entered wartime service on the side of the British Commonwealth. -- saberwyn 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard Australians tell stories? Formerly British, German, it's an oral history. And try saying Omrah with an Australian accent...
SEE! Here's a nice link [40] to the handsome ship. Knowing some good Australian mates, I'm surprised the guy didn't say he was the ship's captain and that he sank a German battleship or two with it! :) Anyway, I don't think there's a Beramba, but I think we should work on the Omrah! Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oy Oy Oy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard Australians tell stories, told several of my own, and know how bad my accent is for non-Australians to understand. My point still stands that there is not enough reliably sourced information available at this point in time to justify an article on a ship called the Beramba. Please feel free to create a reliably sourced article on the Omrah, though. -- saberwyn 09:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, only ships which were commissioned into a navy are considered automatically notable (as it's a given that there will be sufficient reliable sources on these ships) - all other ships need to demonstrate that they pass WP:N. Given that it's unclear which ship this article even refers to, there's not much chance of finding RS to establish that she was either commissioned into naval service (which isn't a given for a troop ship of this period; the Australian Government chartered ships to carry troops to and from Europe during the war) or is notable in her own right. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the ship commissioned into a navy? Is it possible to compare dates to see if The Omrah (which certainly sounds like Beramba to me) matches up with this guy's voyage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) If she was commissioned, it wasn't in an Australian naval force. As for matching them up, dates aren't given in either transcript, but the voyage route is (to quote from the transcript: "...and ourselves, went aboard the Beramba in Melbourne bound for Aden … not Aden … yes Aden it was and eh eventually into Cape Town and on our way from Cape Town to Sierra Leone, which is on the West African coast the … what we term the Spanish Flu broke out… it was a devastating disease and eh … all the medicine on the ship was used up." Does this help? -- saberwyn 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Beramba certainly existed, and this source also confirms her existence and the Spanish Flu outbreak. Just because sources aren't available online doesn't mean there are no sources in existances. There's also this source. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the two sources you link to can both be traced back to the same gentleman (or his family) on whose oral history the article is based, so it still boils down to one man's memory as the basis for this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no independent verification that a ship named Beramba ever existed. The Miramar Ship Index (with 416,000 unique names for 292,000 ships dating to the 1870s) does not list any ship ever with the name of Beramba (and only one—Tanjung Berambang, a dredger built in 1993—that contains those letters in that order). Should reliable sources independent of Allan or his family come to light, I would have no objections against recreation. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless independent sources can be found to verify the existance of this ship. All those posted thus far seem to be sourced back to one particular person, and other searches for information on this vessel have drawn a blank. At the moment, I'd have to say this is more or less unverifiable, and should be deleted as such. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Molder

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

No sources or indication of notability - he was a minor party candidate, so it claims, but for what office? the weasel words have saved it from speedy but now let's see the sources showing notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--I also don't know what office, but he finished fourth (and last). Drmies (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Running for office once is not enough.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G3 as hoax/vandalism, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skadger

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

Probable hoax. Epbr123 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space Amoeba. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gezora

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Space Amoeba 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 of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fictional creatures that only appear in 1 work (in this case 1 film) do not generally pass the criteria of WP:FICT nor WP:N, particularly without secondary sources to show notability. The only secondary source here addresses the creature only in the context of plot summary and mentions of the film's camera techniques, and it I'm not sure if the source passes WP:RS anyway. As such there is no assertion of independent notabilty and no information worth merging into any other article, as Space Amoeba already has a concise plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Love Gezora, but the nom and IllaZilla have pretty much said it all. Unless its notability can be established with the kind of sourcing required to meet the aforementioned guidelines, this belongs on a Godzilla Wiki, not Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 02:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I agree with everything IllaZilla has said. Reyk YO! 02:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: To Space Amoeba, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: To Space Amoeba, per Ryan. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you merge to a nonexistent target? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By creating it and moving the names there... should the closing admin agree. Then the list itself will have to stand up to scrutiny. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dark Horse Comic's. MBisanz talk 02:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Howe Monster

Lord Howe Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Godzilla comic 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 of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- there is no call for an article on this creature because it has no significant real-world impact and devoting an article to it would be undue weight. None of the content is usable anywhere else because it is unsourced original research. Reyk YO! 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional creatures that only appear in 1 work (in this case 1 issue of 1 comic book) do not generally pass the criteria of WP:FICT nor WP:N, particularly without secondary sources to show notability. There are no sources here nor any assertion of notability, so it is unlikely that this could pass WP:V. The article is 100% plot summary and thus also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. The fact that there has been no substantial improvement to the article since its creation 2 years ago (discounting minor edits and category changes) indicates that sufficient secondary source material to support an independent article likely does not exist. None of the content is mergeable elsewhere as it is entirely unreferenced and is just plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand discuss possible merge at the proper place. No reason is given why merge is unsatisfactory. I totally agree it is not worth a stand-alone article. But material like this can be sourced from the work itself, & so there is no objection to merging. NOT PLOT is disputed policy, and in there is no agreement that it means anything more than that the total Wikipedia coverage of a fiction in general can not be entirely plot. And any article can potentially be improved. there is never a single case in Wikipedia where the last sentence of this deletion nomination is applicable. DGG (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it wasstill is (I didn't notice as the "disputed" tag was taken off WP:NOT) disputed does not equate to a complete moratorium on everything currently on the block because of it. There is no consensus right now in changing it, and so it still needs to be followed. MuZemike (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole "NOT#PLOT is a disputed policy" argument is completely hollow, because every time the policy gets challenged it is overwhelmingly upheld. All the "disputes" over it in the last couple of years have not even resulted in a change in wording, so it clearly has widespread consensus. I can start a discussion on any policy talk page and justify placing a "disputed" tag on the policy, but that doesn't invalidate it. This article is nothing but plot summary, with zero references or real-world context, and there is not even an article on the comic book series from which it originates. Where there is no useful, referenced content, there can be nothing to merge, particularly when there is no merge target. I'm all in favor of merging in cases where there is information worth salvaging, but there is no such content here. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is consensus that NOT PLOT is necessary in some form--but there is not agreement is on what it should say--it has been changed, and changed back repeatedly. Current wording is" "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." I see the current wording as primarily inclusive: there must be coverage of the plot, and, it must be concise (but that's a relative term). There is nothing there specified to be excluded, only included. DGG (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7. Skier Dude (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nairba Sirrah

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

A lot of MySpace and a few parts in unknown films. I don't think this meets WP:N.    SIS  00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: At resent, the article does not present any national or international notability as required by an encyclopaedia. Also there is a total lack of references. In time the individual may achieve a better listing of credits and references. At such time the individual may require another evaluation. At present, I suggest that the article be deleted. Royalhistorian (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nairba Sirrah is a brand new page being acurately edited. please Do not delete. Nairba Sirrah has an ImDB page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2736568/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairba (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. You have the remainder of this AFD to improve the article (5 days). Schuym1 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merging doesn't require continuation of this AfD and there's no-consensus to delete. StarM 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orga

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla 2000 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 of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- there is no call for an article on this creature because it has no significant real-world impact and devoting an article to it would be undue weight. None of the content is usable anywhere else because it is unsourced original research. Reyk YO! 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional creatures that only appear in 1 work (in this case 1 film, discounting the tie-in video games) do not generally pass the criteria of WP:FICT nor WP:N, particularly without secondary sources to show notability. There are no sources here nor any assertion of notability, so it is unlikely that this could pass WP:V. The article is 100% plot summary and thus also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. It is highly unlikely that sufficient secondary source material exists to support an independent article. None of the content is mergeable elsewhere as it is entirely unreferenced and is just plot summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand discuss necessary merge at the proper place. No reason is given why merge is unsatisfactory & almost none of t he arguments given here are even relevant to why there should be a deletion rather than a merge or redirect. I totally agree it is not worth a stand-alone article. But material like this can be sourced from the work itself, & so there is no objection to merging. NOT PLOT is disputed policy, and in there is no agreement that it means anything more than that the total Wikipedia coverage of a fiction in general can not be entirely plot. And any article can potentially be improved. there is never a single case in Wikipedia where the last sentence of this deletion nomination is applicable. All the other things cited here are DGG (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole "NOT#PLOT is a disputed policy" argument is completely hollow, because every time the policy gets challenged it is overwhelmingly upheld. All the "disputes" over it in the last couple of years have not even resulted in a change in wording, so it clearly has widespread consensus. I can start a discussion on any policy talk page and justify placing a "disputed" tag on the policy, but that doesn't invalidate it. This article is nothing but plot summary, with zero references or real-world context, and the article on the film already has a concise plot summary. Where there is no useful, referenced content, there can be nothing to merge, particularly when what little plot info might be merged is already present in the target. I'm all in favor of merging in cases where there is information worth salvaging, but there is no such content here. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current wording is" "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." I see the current wording as primarily inclusive: there must be coverage of the plot, and, it must be concise (but that's a relative term). DGG (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge This also strikes me as a clear case where a merge would be the appropriate approach rather than a straight deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: To Godzilla 2000, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:FICT. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect one level up to character list and/or main work article as appropriate. Redirecting is preferable in these cases to outright deletion because it directs other editors to add information to the correct article and reduces the chances for recreation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here and no non-primary sources cited. Cheers, CP 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Scott (author)

Bill Scott (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:CREATIVE. whilst the major book he compiled can be found in Google search. Google news search reveals nothing. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I think he's somewhat notable and would have expected some solid sourcing or at least something to build an expandable stub upon. This was about all I found, though, and it's not nearly enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep A notable chronicler of Australian cultural history. Lots of sources on this author. Here's one [41]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There does not see to be enough information, references or notability to justify this entry. It would not appear in a regular encyclopaedia. As noted, the individual does have a book credit but it fails WP:CREATIVE. This would have been different if the work or combination of works had provided a special place in a historical context. Royalhistorian (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC
you'll need to show more than one source if there are "lots". Michellecrisp (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per ChildofMidnight. Multiple published works listed. Multiple references cited. Author's works - and multiple archival interviews with the author are held in the collection of the National Library of Australia, and attest to his significance. A 3-second Google search prior to slapping an AfD on this article would have revealed this. Nothing wrong with this article at all. Disruptive nomination. Censure nominator. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that in itself doesn't prove notability. needs significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search but a google news search didn't reveal any significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be using a different version of Google from the rest of the world in that case. The 3rd link on the very first results page leads to the National Library of Australia listing for this author - and that links to a further 4 entire pages listing catalogued works and audio interviews with the individual in question extending back as far as the 1950s. Sugesting that "notability" is an issue here is disingenuous at best. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use google news search to find reliable reporting in the media as well. Like this. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. In future I suggest using the rest of Google as well, in order to avoid missing notable subjects like this one, and causing other editors to waste time correcting your errors and oversights. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, I did do a google search. being listed in the NLA still needed more for significant coverage. If you think I've made an error in judgement, that is not malice as you've accused me of. I suggest you concentrate on the arguments for deletion/keep not continual personal commentary on me. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I also question http://www.restlessmusic.com.au as a reliable source. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple indepth audio interviews count as significant coverage. Obituaries in notable publications indicate notability too. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable folklorist and poet with multiple publications and sources. As for your search engine test, WP:Search engine test states: "Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none... Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability" and " Google News used to be less susceptible to manipulation by self-promoters, but with the advent of pseudo-news sites designed to collect ad revenues or to promote specific agendas, this test is often no more reliable than the others" Scapler (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in terms of notability it fares no worse than a multitude of similar stub based biographies on Wiki, if you delete this, you will really have to consider deleting them all. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks sourced enough to me to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article needed work, but I think that notability is well-provenMrathel (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia he passes WP:BIO, but does need some better sources, I have cleaned up the ones that are there with "cite web templates"--kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources, seems to have been Heymann'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_19&oldid=1081103359"