Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Alexf^(talk) 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grindstone (band)

Non-notable band whose only claim to fame is that they their music was part of a soundtrack to a Nintendo 64 game. No sources to back it up. Even if sources were established I would think that the band needs notability outside the game soundtrack to satisfy notability standards. TheLetterM (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as {{db-band}} -- IRP ☎ 23:29, 29 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 Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barigator

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No unneccesary plot details here. All real world information that can be improved by editing. There is no WP:DEADLINE. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "fictional Zoids universe"? I can't believe how many articles we have on that kind of fictional thing. OK, I'm an outsider in the Zoid field, and I'll believe in its notability when I see the sources. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No independent sources, mostly original research. Redirect to either the main article or to a listing page if there are sources for that. Wickethewok (talk) 17:08, 13 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) 00:17, 16 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! 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether or not to merge subsequently on the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because merging/redirecting will still be OR and have no RS. 16x9 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Independent sources don't cover it and it would not meet the proposed WP:FICT (which has a lower threshold in general). Discussing a merger locally is an exercise in bureaucracy and invoking WP:DEADLINE is moot when the subject itself (rather than the article) doesn't meet the guideline for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giatsis

Non-notable coach. He's borderline because he coached an Olympian, but I couldn't find any WP:RS. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:08, 4 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) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some evidence of notability. More than a lot of the olympic athletes we keep... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My issue is not with his notability but is with his sourcing. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote this article for what it's worth: [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:01, 16 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 01:32, 11 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:12, 16 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! 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with Darth Panda's comment above regarding sourcing - we need reliable sources in order to verify the information in the article. I've done an initial search but turned up empty-handed, I'll have a more thorough look though. Wiw8 (talk) 13:19, 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 deleted as a redirect to user space (CSD R2), the article having been moved to a user page part way through this AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastic Thread

Non-notable Thread or Facebook group with no citations and no assertion of notability. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and WP:MADEUP. Graymornings_(talk) 11:38, 16 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! 23:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Now it's a mainspace article redirected to a userpage. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it snowing yet? Graymornings_(talk) 07:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no apparent coverage in reliable sources establishing notability of this group. Wiw8 (talk) 13:40, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon james morgan

Actor with a few roles in notable shows, but not enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Graymornings_(talk) 11:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, and WP:*. --fvw * 11:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views but disagree. I believe Simon James Morgan has sufficient deomonstratable success to warrant an article on Wikipedia.

He has starred in several notable movies including 2 of the very successful Chuckie franchise.

I look forward to your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walesmerlin (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO he shall not pass Wochende (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to figure out of any of his roles are leads or substantial supporting roles, but for whoever wants to figure it out: Here is a full list of his credits in all media. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 17 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! 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't seen the Chucky films but I doubt that "Claudia's dad" is a major role. Looking at google and google news I don't see any critical commentary about him, just mentions of him in various parts. Juzhong (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I would suggest that the work be improved and more information, credit info., references and reasons for nobility added. A few lines always look bad. I would suggest that people who are doing entries, work with others to make a suitable paper before posting it for all to see. I wish the endeavour goodluck but at present it is weak in many areas. Royalhistorian (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Marini

Doesn't fulfil WP:BIO, and I think bits of it might be an ad. --fvw * 13:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom TheXenocide (talk) 13:43, 16 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! 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self advertisement. DGG (talk)

Weak Delete: Actually I like the entry but indeed it is self advertising. The entry merely tell one of his endeavours with a slant toward making him more important and well known. It is my opinion that he should already be well known to be in an encyclopaedia. Again it all comes down to achievements and independent source material. Both are weak. Royalhistorian (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless reliable sources can be found which establish notability and verify facts. Conducted a brief google search but can't find anything satisfying WP:RS. Wiw8 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leiser

Does not appear to be notable. Coverage in third-party sources is not significant. Has not won any awards or such like. Martin 14:04, 16 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! 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: OK, the entry is weak but it does have potential. There is considerable achievement but it is very weak on independent references. I feel that this can be corrected. Far too much space is given to sports and actor personalities and far to little to the guy behind the scenes. I suggest 1. more independent references, 2. better direction and 3. a general attempt to find one hook or reason for notability. Royalhistorian (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup. A number of the article's current EL's have potential to further source the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The director/animator of two films with articles surely meets WP:CREATIVE? Actually, looking there it seems as if an actor in multiple notable films is covered (byWP:ENTERTAINER), but the director may not be - that anomaly should surely be adjusted? Keep anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 Internationally distributed film releases, worldwide film festival coverage and international theatrical distribution = notibility. Also, 2 more art shows added (another in Los Angeles, and New York) take the art gallery tally to 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.242.84 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found, establishing notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:38, 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 02:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Tease

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 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! 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really sure how to find RS's for porn but unsurprisingly nothing on google news, books, scholar. Juzhong (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AVN [2] and XBIZ [3] are the two most commonly used RS for this type of article. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing relevant found on either xbiz or avn, just trivial mention in a few film reviews. Fails to meet any either general or WP:PORNBIO.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:34, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNNfan

Non-notable terminology. Does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Gr1st (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the article is for both a website and what appears to be a neologism, no? MuZemike (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As far as I can see, none of the dozen or so sources confer any real notability on either the website or the term. The article as a whole is also pretty crufty. Gr1st (talk) 20:21, 17 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! 23:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a mess, as suggested above, and I don't see that the existence of a website mandates a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too

Lack of third-party reliable sources means that this article fails verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator: Please note that I have completely rewritten and added significant amounts of material to Menace in Europe article. Please also note the several reputable sources reviewing this book, which I was able to find in about five minutes. travb (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination, unless credibly defended under WP:BK. Article can always be recreated if a case for notability is made. We have too much book-spam on WP on the basis "create article first, establish WP:BK later or never". --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 17 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! 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep In addition to the Baltimore Chronicle review, already on this page, there is Google books: National Review did an article on this book, also America's Intelligence Wire, American Enterprise, Times Online. Recommendations for the book, including Michael Medved, reviews including New Oxford Review, The Jerusalem Post, The New York Sun and Canada's most influential news Macleans.
WP:BK is used, which states, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews" Quoting acronyms is no substitute for taking two minutes to search of Google News and Google. travb (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not the least a bad faith nomination, given it was an almost almost meaningless article about a book by what would have seemed a non-notable author. The best course after keeping will be to make an article on the author and merge this one into it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - travb's claim of a bad-faith nomination is completely without merit, for starters. As for the article, it fails every aspect of WP:BK. It should also be noted that a stated intent of the now-banned user who authored this book's article was to create articles with the intent that they get picked up by google searches and artificially inflate the subject's importance. Tarc (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you claim that this article "fails every aspect of WP:BK" When I (1) quote several prominent magazines that mentions this book, (2) when I am the only one who actually quotes the acronym WP:BK that everyone uses here: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews". Is National Review and Times Online trivial works? Let me add my own acronym: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself...the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article" travb (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can claim it because it is, um, true? Your Google search (never a reliable method of establishing notability in itself) turns up nothing significant. The Times Online mentions the book in passing while taking about a different book, for example. As for "Arguments to the person", yes, I generally agree with that, but I feel that this is an exception. An off-wiki sock/meatpuppet group was organized to create and artificially inflate the standing of non-notable works such as this. The extreme bad faith undertaken by a banned user (Zeq) in the creation of this article should be a consideration here. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I retracted my comments which may detract from the evidence showing how illegitimate the deletion reasoning is here, and added many more sources which have reviewed this book.
      There is no possible way that this book will ever be considered worthy to be on wikipedia by some editors here. There is some past bad blood between some editors and the creator of this article, which some editors insist on bringing into this article. So, as user:DGG so eloquently put it: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience."
      The National Review article is ignored, and the short mention of the Times Online is focused on, because the National Review article is a full review of the book.[4] travb (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News search linked above shows notability per WP:BK. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above: although it should be moved to Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis is America's (Book).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:50, 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 merge to Srđa Trifković. Sandstein 09:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defeating Jihad

Lack of third-party reliable sources means that this article fails verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 19:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question--if a book like this is published and only right-wing blogs report on it...OK, I can't finish that joke. But I cannot find anything at all on this title that has any kind of journalistic or historical credibility--I thought I had a hit on the Guardian website, but that was only a user comment on an editorial. The rest was all jihadwatch and such. I would love for some experienced WP'ers to weigh in. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge as per DGGKeep Multiple reviews in secondary sources independent of the subject. These are notable, well-known magazines with serious editorial processes (within the bounds of WP:RS), and their reviews more than suffice for WP:BK, whatever their political slants. Ray (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Multiple reviews" where? Among the citations in the article right now, only the Orange County Register source is an actual review of this book. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point. I have changed my position above. I was responding initially to a perceived characterization of the sources as unreliable. The sources mentioned in the article are reliable and suitable for WP:V, although care has to be taken since they are partisan voices. However, it is true, as you point out, that the source links don't talk about this book directly, but rather the author's previous work, The Sword of the Prophet. (The link is dead, but the Archive has the page). Thus, the only review of the book we currently have is the Orange County Register. Independent searching of my own found another long review article (Counterterrorism & Homeland Security Reports, 2006 Summer, Vol. 13, No. 3, 893 words, Review by Carl H. Yaeger) -- it's behind a paywall, but I'll be pleased to send a copy to any editor who contacts me via email. Other than that, Lexis turns up mostly incidental mentions, hence my changing of my position to merge. Ray (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for doing that search. (I searched Lexis myself, but I must not be very good at it because I turned up nothing.) Actually, given that we now have at least two reviews, we see now that it is possible to write a neutral article here--"neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of presenting multiple points of view on the topic of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't even matter if all the reviews are right-wing as long as they present some differing perspectives on the book. The one you cite, for example, while sympathetic to the book's thesis, doubts that "Dr. Trikovics [sic] suggestions [are] feasible." The article should be kept. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Ray, Several editors seem to make a habit of nominating well sourced books, instead of adding new sources to the articles themselves, wasting a lot of editors time in AfDs. travb (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article for the writer. We probably need real criteria for these, because the 2RS=N rule leads to keeps of articles about books that are not in any meaningful sense notable. Like this. Published in '06 but still in only 50 worldcat libraries. DGG (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've encountered your notion of zomg-notability before, but let me see if I understand it correctly as applied to books. Say this book were in 500 billion Worldcat libraries, but had received no significant independent coverage. Then the Wikipedia page could never grow much beyond the following sentence:
  Zomg this book is in 500 billion Worldcat libraries.
  (plus, perhaps, an OR/NPOV-violating summary of the book's arguments and ideas). Would you favor keeping in that case? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have yet to find a book resent in a large number of WorldCat libraries without independent coverage from reviews. Libraries buy books in large part on the basis of reviews. How large the number is for the delete / dubious/keep divisions depends on the date & the subject --for current popular-level books of current political interest importance I would expect at least a few hundred--if the politics involved was relevant to the predominantly US coverage in WorldCat. This topic is. DGG (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to suggest that, in general, Worldcat holdings are correlative with the existence of reviews. But even if you're right, two reviews have actually been found in this case. 98.122.44.244 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (same person as above)[reply]
Comment, 3 years ago books like this were created and constantly kept. About a year ago we had a great purge of borderline notability books like this. Now they're being kept again. We just need good standards taht are applied equallly to "pro" and "anti" Islam books... gren グレン 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article about author. There are a few reviews, but they originate primarily from sources which are themselves polemical and partisan. I don't see anything which could really be classed as a non-trivial review from a good quality reliable source (I'm open to being corrected), but considering one editor above has identified a potential source (viewing for which is restricted), I'm inclined to believe that a merge is a reasonable compromise. ITAQALLAH 00:56, 25 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 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wowhead

Non-notable specialty software and/or website. Its three external sources appear to be blogs, hence not reliable sources. Compare also the previous AfD, which was closed as "delete", at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowhead. Sandstein 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Possible Speedy) certainly not notable. Fails WP:WEB rather strongly, and looks to be a recreation of a previously deleted article. (If there was some improvement since the last time, it's not enough) Bfigura ^(talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Wowhead is certainly a well known site among World of Warcraft players (I use it myself), although so are many other WoW specific websites that aren't notable. Many WoW interface addons also use Wowhead's data, an example being Auctioneer.. I found a couple of mentions through Google News, namely here and here, but little else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingsol (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Change to keep following rewrite Has some news hits. Although Allakhazam is indexed in google news (lol). May have some notoriety among wow websites because it was purchased by IGE (a gold-selling firm). Gets one book hit in english that constitutes some coverage (I'm excluding the other three that pick up the search term). Scholar hits are a no-go because google thinks I mean "wow head". Protonk (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Rewritten. Non-RS removed. Spammy sections cut out. Some reliable sources added. Odds are this will be a permastub but as written I think it meets the inclusion guidelines. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and rework carried out by Protonk in order to meet WP:N and WP:V. Gazi moff 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:WEB. The sources kindly added by Protonk only establish the existence of the site, and are trivial as they only provide brief summary of the nature of the site's content. What this article fails to provide is detail on the website's achievements, impact or historical significance, if it has any. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - after reviewing the sources, I would argue that the website passes criterion 1 of WP:WEB. I would additionally argue that they are non-trivial sources as defined by criterion 1. Many thanks, Gazi moff 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only (possibly) reliable source currently cited is no. 1, "Hacking World of Warcraft." The online sources are press releases and such. That's not coverage by multiple reliable sources, and probably not substantial coverage either. What does the book "Hacking World of Warcraft" actually say about the software? Sandstein 13:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text is web available. You can get to it from my first comment above. As for the others being press releases--meh. Edge and Gamasutra are reliable sources. TUAW is as well (As a subsidiary of AOL/Weblogs inc). Like I said above, this will never expand beyond a stub, but it doesn't need to. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources. As Protonk said, this isn't necessarily a massively important site, but it warrants at least a stub. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:56, 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 Fairport High School#FHS FIRST Robotics team . MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairport FIRST Robotics

A high school team is not notable. It does not pass WP:ORG. The many references are actually all to the same page, which does not guarantee notability. High school teams are not notable and should be within the main article (Fairport High School). Reywas92 ^Talk 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairport High School#FHS FIRST Robotics team which could have just been boldly done since the notable information is already there. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 16 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, Stifle (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. Redirects my be cheap, but making a redirect from every high school team to the high school is essentially useless. Anyone would know immediately where to look without it.DGG (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The high school team is impressive and even inspiring. But they are a high school team. Such items do not generally merit a place in an encyclopaedia. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:04, 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 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of Wax Poetics featured artists

I think this smacks of WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It would be like posting an article containing an index to products reviewed in Consumer Reports each issue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having posted this, I disagree. Wax Poetics is heralded as a legitimate research tool, not only for record collectors, but academics, and this is a way of outlining, for their convenience, what seminal musical artists have been interviewed or profiled–sometimes exclusively–for the magazine. There's no harm in this. Not to mention, Wax is the sole provider of its particular coverage: examining hip-hop through the samples used, and shedding light on the pioneering artists who have essentially created the contemporary sonic lexicon. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a site for information that people want, and I posted this in response to comments from fellow Wax readers who felt it would be an excellent resource. -Dani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniprobably (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A publication like Wax Poetics would ordinarily carry this sort of information on its own website and people can reasonably be expected to seek it there. To help you out, I note that you really didn't address any of the reasons I gave in favor of deletion. Wikipedia has a detailed series of guidelines regarding inclusion of articles, two of which are referenced by the links I provided above. There are kinds of information that, granted, some people might think to find here, but various consensuses have been reached regarding WP:What Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It seemed to me like a legitimate index–something not found in-full on the Wax website–that would characterize the magazine and its scope of coverage. But I'm not an admin, so I don't really have a say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.157.138 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need to be an admin to comment here! But to be most useful, contributions to a deletion discussion should take into account how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to the article at hand. Note that I'm not in anyway implying that the information on that page isn't useful, but that isn't the sole applicable criterion. Others may not agree with me on the applicability of the guidelines I cited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 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, Stifle (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--no matter the relevance of Wax Poetics, this index does not qualify as a Wikipedia article. And if Wax's own website doesn't have it, well, they should consider making it. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he important information is already in the main article. I do not think we should be publishing magazine tables of contents--I count it as spam, because of the links to the notable subjects of the articles. DGG (talk) 04:26, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trotec

Company that does not seem to meet notability requirement. TimothyRias (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A firm that has 15% market share and exists in 90 countries is in my opinion, notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 20 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, So Why 23:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll have to agree with Rlevse here.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable by market share.DGG (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - market share (which appears to be verifiable) indicates notability, although the article would benefit from more reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wiw8 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 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 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmit Bachar's First Studio Album

Stop! HAMMERtime! Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smash with the Hammer. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 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 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ellis-Bextor's 4th studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sophie Ellis-Bextor's 4th studio album

Stop! HAMMERtime! Sceptre ^(talk) 23:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by smashing this album with the Hammer. MuZemike (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 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 02:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salty the Seal

Non-notable character, seems too obscure to merge. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Every Disney character that makes a repeating appearance is notable, for there will almost certainly be mentions of him in the literature. Even if there isn't, every individually named character in significant fiction should be redirected. DGG (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. I agree, Salty appeared in numerous cartoons. Elbutler (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could do with rewrite/expansion, but even if we can't find any coverage independent of the subject (which I'm sure there must be, will have a look if time) it should at least be redirected, not deleted. Wiw8 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. The article as it is hardly qualifies as a stub, but it is better than a simple wp:red link, and someone may come along and improve it...eventually. Having the article there makes that more likely. I don't think I'll get to it anytime soon but I'll add it to my list of "wouldn't it be nice to be able to edit this". sinneed (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A basic google search shows that this is a real character with independent sources--no reason to suspect that one or two RS couldn't be elicited from the results. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a Heymann Standard improvement in order for it to be worthy of keeping (such as actual substance and citations), but at the present time, a WP:Redlink is preferable so it would encourage the writing of a standalone article... but for now, delete. B.Wind (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation: I too was gonna suggest being a redlink might actually help, but I was scared by the inevitable shitstorm I'd receive. As it stands, this article doesn't contribute anything to the encyclopaedia (because if anyone's reading it, they've probably been linked to it through a Pluto article). But perhaps if some Disney freak sees it as a redlink, they might recreate it with more content. Saying that I can clearly see that this character is notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:01, 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 redirect to The Destructors (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destructors 666

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have a TON of vinyl, but it's all on their own dime and their own minor label. I have been unable to find ANY references to them (besides the usual lyrics and ringtones). Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Destructors (band) and redirect. Destructors 666 is essentially a new line-up of The Destructors (or at least a continuation of varying line-ups from the original band). I originally created Destructors 666 as a redirect to The Destructors (band), a notable second-wave UK punk band, but it has since been forked and built up in to an article by another editor. This can go back to being a redirect.--Michig (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no substantial 3rd party references, per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Avenue, Dublin

Delete - A non notable avenue, which mentions being the setting of an event in a famous book which of course deserves its own article, but this avenue doesn't Balloholic (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that doesn't meet WP:50k by a country mile...delete. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a matter of just deserts or an arbitrary number. What matters is sources and this place has them in abundance. I have added a few citations to demonstrate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- But there are no sources. This avenue is just like every other one in Ireland - not notable. --Balloholic (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources. I have cited some and provided links to others in the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estate Agents, Property Developers - They are not genuine sources. There is a house being sold on nearly every street in the world. --Balloholic (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source such as A Topographical Guide to James Joyce's Ulysses is not of this sort and there are numerous others like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well if they exist, get them and put them to some use. Ulysses isn't the be all and end all of everything. Find more references. Is this avenue notable for anything other than appearing in a book. --Balloholic (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't just dismiss a swathe of sources because they don't suit your case. For example, the Queen of England is just notable for being the Queen. She doesn't need to be a great author, acrobat and/or footballer too. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid you are mistaken Colonel Warden and perhaps need to read WP:N and its related sub-policies. Sources and verifiability to not automatically make something notable. Fails WP:STREET by an impressively long margin. Trusilver 20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:STREET is just User:Grutness' personal opinion (and so the redirect is misleading) but it says, "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk ... The first type of street is usually notable enough for an article in its own right." This street is clearly of the first type due to the quirk that it plays a significant part in a novel which has received extensive literary interest and analysis. Therefore, by WP:STREET, this article is notable. And since it is notable in the usually way, per WP:NOTABILITY, we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything notable about the street in its own right. Being part of the action of a major novel does not in itself make a street inherently notable; the novel is notable, the street is not. As to the essay, yes, it is simply a personal opinion, but one which is used by a large number of other editors too - and no, the cross-namespace redirect is not misleading, it is common practice for extensively used personal essays to be linked in this way (and the redirects from Wikispace to it were resoundingly kept when brought up for deletion last year for just that reason). Grutness...wha? 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is faulty. When WP:STREET was proposed for deletion a year ago, there was the delete nomination plus one delete and one keep and the close was no consensus. And your concept of inherent notability is flawed since all streets only inherently consist of some paving and street furniture. What makes them notable is always something else - their buildings, uses, destination, history or whatever. The only test remains whether the subject has been noticed in reliable sources and this one certainly has. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is not faulty, but your reading of what I wrote appears to be - I said that redirects were resoundingly kept. have a look at the one above, for instance, which is for the redirect WP:50k. The result was a snowball keep after no-one other than the nominator saw deletion s being appropriate. As for my concept of inherent notability, it relies largely on WP:N, which lays things out pretty clearly. As far as WP:N is concerned, this street does not meet the required notability standards. Within the context of Ulysses, it deserves mention in the article Ulysses (novel). Outside that context, there's nothing - the best web hits for it are for estate agents, which are hardly the reliable secondary sources required to meet notability standards. Find me one reliable source that is not primarily about the novel, and my views on this subject's notability may change - since it would also make it closer to meeting WP:N. Without those sources, though, or some other reason why the street may be regarded as intrinsically notable, it does not meet those standards. Let's take an analogy here: the article on Penny Lane - another street best known for references to it in a notable creative work. There is no separate article on the lane itself, however - there are details about the road within the article on the song. The street is not notable enough for its own article,. despite being an important feature of a major creative work. Similarly, there is nothing notable about Newbridge Avenue itself - any fame it has is through references to it in Ulysses. It does not deserve its own article; all it should have are details within the article on Ulysses. I would have no objection to a separate subarticle (e.g., Places mentioned in Ulysses (novel) or similar. Such an article may indeed be appropriate. Certainly it would make more sense than a bundle of articles on streets which have no inherent notability in and of themselves. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Penny Lane article is a peculiar mix of music and geography. Abbey Road (street) and Abbey Road (album) seem better. As for sources, you seem to suppose that your personal rule excuses you from doing any work yourself. No matter, I am used to such commands from those who are too busy deleting the work of others. I have just added a citation to the Encyclopedia of Dublin which has an entry for this place relating its history in other connections. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read all the above and found it to be a waste of time. Even the suggestion that this is notable is the same old brand of no-hold-barred unmitigated inclusionism that suggests that if some dumbass somewhere, sometime once wrote anything published about something, then obviously it is deserving of an article. That's so moronic that I can't bring myself to even humor you by arguing the point. Trusilver 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Colonel Warden) Thank you for your objectionable and insulting suggestion that I am not doing any work myself and am "too busy deleting the work of others" to do any. If I thought this article was borderline and worthy of saving, I would have done what i could to save it - as I have done with dozens of such articles brought up for AFD. In this case, however, the road is so far below the requirements of notability that it seems unlikely that - unless someone is actually on the ground in Dublin with a secret source of information about the place unknown to the web - there was no way that anything I could do to it would save it. FWIW, I have deleted only a smallnumber of articles in comparison to the number that I have created or improved over the years I have been on Wikipedia. As for "QED", your comments do indeed demonstrate something, but not, I suggest, what it is that you are trying to demonstrate. If even a significant tome like the Encyclopedia of Dublin can only provide you with one small sentence worth mentioning on the road, and that on a fairly unnotable aspect of it, then they definitely demonstrate the lack of notability of the place. You comments also clearly demonstrate difficulty in arguing to the subject of the discussion and a definite penchant for directly attacking those who disagree with you rather than the points they raise. QED indeed. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence? Is this another of your arbitrary numerical rules? I have added some more sentences and structured the article into three paragraphs which demonstrate this location's notability in three separate respects - its appearance as a significant location in Ulysses; its topography and history; the current high prices of property there. I may well find other aspects of the place which merits inclusion - the main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources to select from and so poring over them is laborious. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest a redirect to Ulysses. --Balloholic (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the sheer utter irrelevance of much of the above discussion and have solved the problem. I notice Grutness speaks some sense. Article will be redirected to the more NPOV link located here. --Balloholic (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are withdrawing your proposal that the article be deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all notable in its own right Warden and I really don't think it should exist. I stick to my safely locked guns on this matter. --Balloholic (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There are Newbridge Avenues all over the world (maps.google.com, anyone?), so a redirect is inappropriate (as is this article). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate. A list of Newbridge Avenues from across the world. However this one will merely be mentioned on it discreetly and will not have an article of it's own I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That won't help, especially given that none of the world's Newbridge Avenues seem particularly noteworthy. There's very little evidence that the ones in Sunderland, Wolverhampton, San Mateo and elsewhere are in any way worth articles. The most notable one other than the one being discussed here seems to be the one in East Meadow, New York. Given that Eleanor Roosevelt briefly lived there, it may be more noteworthy than the Dublin one, but even it would be struggling for a stand-alone article. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A list will do. Better than one non-notable Dublin avenue. Failing that, this article should be transferred to the NY branch of editors I expect will be waiting in the wings to take on the task described above. That is - all Dublin material will be filtered out and the article converted to an American one. Either way this ought to be deleted and passed on for New York to deal with. Let them sort it out. --Balloholic (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The move was useful in that it addressed the risk that Newbridge Avenue could have been redirected to something re Ulysses, which would be an inappropriate assertion of ownership over a highly generic name. Redirecting Newbridge Avenue, Dublin to something related to Ulysses would seem appropriate. I can see little need for anything but redink at Newbridge Avenue once this discussion concludes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing in the arguments above demonstrates notability. It is just another NN street. We cannot have an article on every street in every city. Once many articles used to have a "Popular Culture" section, full of trivia, such as minor literary allusions, and allusions in film on TV etc. These were deleted wholesale sometime ago. Let's not have this trash back, even the high-literary part. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the numerous sources which well demonstrate notability. Your argument about every street in the world is debunked at WP:ALLORNOTHING. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient indications of notability, and sources to show it. There will probably be sufficient sources for every individual street given in Joyce. They have all been included in the immense literature on his works, since they are considered characterizing elements. I would not necessarily say this about other authors.DGG (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Several books are listed as sources, making this entry notable. travb (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. So several books mention little locations in fictional worlds like Narnia, MiddleEarth or Hogswarts. Does that make every nook and cranny in them all notable? And more to the point what are these sources? If one says a baby seal was murdered here in 1752 and another says a dog died of genital herpes and rabies here in 1534 and another says a woman tripped and fell flat on her face and broke her front nose and left ear in 1991 - does that make such a place notable for an encyclopedia? No it doesn't (because I know someone will be silly enough to answer yes to that!) --Balloholic (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't bother trying to argue that point. Inclusionist, or whatever he's calling himself right now, is only here pushing his agenda that EVERYTHING is notable pretty much without exception. Trusilver 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am very uncomfortable with the different signatures and I was taken in until it was pointed out above. How do we know she hasn't contributed to this or any of the other street conversations under different names? This has moved me. I think her opinion should be disqualified. --Balloholic (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete James Joyce maybe be highbrow but the notability is still fictional and if this street is notable it has to have relevance in the real world. The rest of the article contains nothing to demonstrate notability. Themfromspace (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The reliable sources provided in the references section highlight the street notability per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) ~~(a real policy in Wikipedia, not a fictional policy as WP:50k)~~--Jmundo (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, that is only a proposed policy, not a real policy as you stated. Themfromspace (talk) 06:40, 25 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 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chishouse

Hoaxity-hoaxishness, by the looks of it. Chishouse returned some 90 non-WP ghits - none of the about a US village. There doesn't appear to be a "Demun" anywhere in the US, and a google search of chishouse+demun returned no ghits whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A likely madeup hoax. The only "Demun" I could find in the US is in Arkansas, but there's nothing called Chishouse anywhere near it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--hoax. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of any relevant sources. Wiw8 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of now this seems unverifiable and probably a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutha

Non-notable band; no references provided. Blowdart | ^talk 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This band released with a notable label. If it can meet the WP:GNG it might be considered notable. The referencing is the real issue here. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The entry is poorly written and composed. There are no independent references and nobility is questionable. Can it be improved? In a lot of cases, a person or group of people suggests an entry and then disappear. If it is worth keeping, write something to show its worth.Royalhistorian (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--if an album is advertised in the Best Buy flyer (I think--could have been Target...) that came with my newspaper, then surely it's not nothing. That said, it's a terrible article. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We aren't saying it's "nothing", we're saying it isn't notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable group, per WP:MUSIC. One album, no charting, very little coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mithunam

Non-notable film that fails to meet WP:MOVIE. Sources searched for, none found. PROD & maintenance tags removed without comment or improvement. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you search for sources? Since the IMDB entry doesn't list an official website for the movie, I don't think you can rely on Google to find sources, and it's likely that sources are in Malayam rather than English. Do you speak the language? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup. I have tagged the article for rescue and corrected the reflist and cast sections. Per a Google search, there seems to be potential for this being a fine little article... chock full of Malayalam notables. No need to delete when it can be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a super hit movie in Malayalam. We will have to dig out for more sources. Salih (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yea I speak Malayalam, and this film is banging lol! Seriously tho Mgm's got a good point. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:07, 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 keep. John254 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dublin Gates

Delete - A list of non notable "gates" with no reliable sources for verifiability Balloholic (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some historical significance to the seven city gates in Dublin, because they used to collect tolls from persons coming into the city [5], although all but one of the gates was torn down later. However, the article has no context and hasn't seen much improvement since it was put up four months ago. If nothing is added, let it go. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. WP:BEFORE says a nominator should attempt to find sources before nominating an article. Since these are obviously structures from before the internet age, it's quite possible the majority of sources are paper not readily available to you. Also, city gates have historic significance. The existence of at least one of these can be confirmed "city+gate"+dublin&btnG=Search+Books so I'd suggest that unless more information about these structures is presented, they should be merged in the history section of Dublin. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or weak merge, certainly not a well known topic that I never remember hearing of previously. ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should delete everying WW2censor hasn't heard of, I bet they were well known when they existed. Here's a source for one. [6] Juzhong (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having lived in Dublin for more than 40 years with an interest in history of the city, Juzhong, you should AGF and be civil not criticise my opinion if you don't know me or my knowledge. Supply V sources and some details and I will be happy to keep. BTW, Balloholic, my hair may be grey but I was not around Dublin in the 1930s! ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Xyr comment was perfectly civil, and you outright told everyone that your knowledge was lacking, so your accusing people of assumptions about what you know hardly has a good foundation. Your rationale was (and remains) a bad one that has no support in Wikipedia:Deletion policy whatsoever. This isn't an encyclopaedia of what a random set of editors at any given time might have personally heard of. That route leads swiftly to chaos. Hence the reason that deletion policy has never included any such reason for deleting, or indeed keeping, things. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you say so, but imho I thought it was not very civil. I don't see where I told everyone that my "knowledge was lacking" but I assume this is your own synthesis. Regarding my reasoning, I took into account the nom's reasons and I saw that there were no decent verifiable sources. Additionally I have been unable, even since then, to find anything verifiable in addition to my knowledge. As I also wrote, I am absolutely prepared to go with a keep if someone better than me can provide some details and V sources which is what we need for this to remain. Generally I am an inclusionist and don't support deletion unless warranted. ww2censor (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add proper sources, which should not be difficult--any history of the city would do very well. People should search at least a little if the field is unfamiliar, before nominating. We could almost certainly have a perfectly good article on each individual one of them, as with other important historic structures even if they do not currently exist,because notability is permanent. DGG (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic seems notable enough, as are fortifications of any major historic town. The article has much room for improvement though. I can't even tell from it whether the gates still exist or not. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper WP:COMMONSENSE. I can't imagine how anyone could not consider this a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not even tell us which gates are real and which are fictional. I could easily add Z-Gate or Lynott Gate or Edgegate or Eddie Hobbs Gate (which would be in Cork) ad nobody would be any the wiser. If Ww2censor has been around since the 1930s and cannot remember them then how can they be notable? --Balloholic (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable topic that's worthy of more than a simple list. Themfromspace (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I presume this is a list of the gates in the walls of Dublin when it was a walled city. It is only a stub, but it could be a useful one. I expect that the gates were demolished so long ago that little is known of any of them, but the article might be expanded to cover the Walls of Dublin, featuring its gates. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the title is unfortunate as it presumes a list and perhaps not much else. However, there is a great deal of valuable history about the walls of Dublin and its gates, not available anywhere else on Wikipedia, which I think could go in here. I myself have old drawings and maps showing the gates and would be prepared to upload a selection as soon as I get the time. Hohenloh
- Bravo. This is by no means the worst and is like Dublin quays in that as soon as I get those bloody quays deleted they will be collectively in that article and I don't want to see individual gates. --Balloholic (talk) 15:56, 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Movies

Do we need an article listing monster movies? This could be merged with Monster movie to provide a list of significant films. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this was testing the waters, since there are only four entries. It doesn't appear that there has been a separate list of monster movies, surprisingly, since it seems like there's a list for everything else. I agree that notable films can continue to be mentioned in the main article. Mandsford (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine what a list on monster movies could provide that a category can't. WP:CLN Regardless, such a list is unlikely to be comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't imagine why giving the year, director, country of original etc would be useful? Juzhong (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list might indeed be useful, but the discussion is about this list. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G2) — This smells more like a test page than anything else. MuZemike (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--Muzemike is correct. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and expand there is no reason why we should not have a list, and deleting an incomplete article 4 minutes after it has been made is BITEy. Better to add notable ones to the article--there are quite enough for a good list. DGG (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep How do I keep thee? Let me count the ways:

The nominator is proposing a merge and so has come to the wrong place.
The talk above about a test page seems bizarrely irrelevant.
WP:CLS says clearly that lists are not superseded by categories.
The topic has massive notability.
Wikipedia is not Crush, Crumble and Chomp!

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "you've come to the wrong place" argument is never persuasive. Mr. Vernon was not proposing a merge, but rather saying that the article should be deleted and that (at nomination time) the scant information could be placed elsewhere. However, I see signs that you are trying to make this a better article, so I think that we should hold off on a decision. Sourcing is good, and I hope that you (or someone else willing to help improve) will add some context. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating for deletion only a few minutes after creation doesn't really give this a chance. There should be plenty of notable potential additions to this list. Wiw8 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think that the nomination was probably the best thing that could have happened to this article. Otherwise, it likely would have gone unnoticed by other persons who would improve upon it. It's still not much of an article, but it appears that at least one editor is working to make it more encyclopedic. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a test page, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change to keep per the improvements made in the article above. No longer a test page. Note that I was thinking of WP:CHANCE at first, but even those articles are not immune to speedy deletion for good reasons. MuZemike (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let it be improved. It got tossed to AfD waaaaay too soon. Give it a chance as there is no WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monster movie, which is sparse as it is. We also have a category for monster movies, so anything highlighted at the main article should be significant as reliably sourced. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with no prejudice against recreation. This list seems a bit like a test edit, but it's undeniable that it's unfinished (or anywhere near conclusive). If the author wants to carry it on, he can asked to have it saved to his sandbox and work on it there, then re-add to the main space when he's finished, that what the rest of us have to do. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, our editing policy encourages the submission of slight stubs so that the community may assist in their development. It is like the fable of the Stone Soup or many hands make light work. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know if you hadn't put the "no" at the start, you would've totally charmed me into submission lol ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is not required because this is not a vote. My point was to indicate that your observations were contrary to official policy and so should be discounted. I elaborate here as you may wish to point to some countervailing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love you too xXx Ryan4314 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not as good as List of zombie films or list of giant monster films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombiesOfRock (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be stunned if there was no reliable source that compiled an exhaustive or near-exhaustive list of monster movies. Stunned. This is a reasonable list (rather than the usual List of XYZ genre films but with ABC twist) and can work regardless of it being redundant to a category. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Bell (broadcaster)

Non-notable TV cameraman and presenter. A search for reliable sources has turned up plenty but they are all either about Geoff Bell (actor) or Geoffrey Bell businessman - even the New Zealand Herald piece cited in the article doesn't actually mention him. Article has been extensively edited in the past 24 hours by the subject, apparently at the behest of his agent[7] although of course this is not in itself a reason for deletion but it does suggest an element of self-promotion. Nancy ^talk 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you tried coaching the person in question? If it really is the subject himself, he'd be the one to know where to find references about him without running into articles about people with similar names... - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A lot of time, a person attempts to explain what his/her work or notability is about. Often this is taken for self promoting. However, this is not always the case as the person may simply be attempting to explain a concept, work or achievement unknown to the editor or reviewer. This is why I believe that only people knowledgeable in the specific field should edit a work. Hopefully this total freedom on Wikipedia will change. However, there is a need for good references and proof that the person is notable to others (a large marketing group). Keep, only if improved. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - as I said in the nomination, self-promotion is not itself a reason to delete. I had initially set-out to "rescue" the article & provide proper cites but was thwarted in my endeavours as I could not find any WP:RS, hence the decision to nominate for not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Nancy ^talk 15:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence of notability in news archives. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self -promotion is not, in itself, a reason to delete, but I do not think that this person meets the notability criteria, and can't find reliable sources to indicate otherwise. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete admitted COI and spam like behaviors. β^_command 23:43, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bartlett

Football (soccer) player who has never played for a fully professional club, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 21:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Sharveet (talk) 17:34, 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. Umm, no. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan Jesus

Article is a fanfiction attempt to tie Jesus into the "Dragonball" anime/manga universe. Some ghits. This seems more worthy of Urban Dictionary (where this is an entry.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. HeureusementIci (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense, original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent OR, no reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR personal essay. The original "Dragon Ball" manga (which most of these events happened in) is mostly a parody of Journey to the West, which has nothing to do with Chrisitianity. Thanks for playing, though. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Chasingsol (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense and OR. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you guys really taking this seriously? I'm having a good chuckle at the "delete because original research" people. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate with a kaio-ken x 10 kamehameha wave as an epic fail, if for no other reason (like a Saiyan would actually let anyone try to crucify them...). —Dino guy 1000 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 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 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopedia

Non-notable web site; all references fail WP:RS, can't find anything reliable to indicate notability Blowdart | ^talk 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are either primary, or non-notable blogs. Cynical (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rapid growth is not a indication of enc notability. Reliable third party sources completely lacking. Mfield (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google News yields one unrelated result, Google itself has lots of self-references, or unreliable blogs or trivial mentions. A single controversy only picked up by a handful of blogs doesn't make a website notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability and verifying the article facts. Wiw8 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scarcely even a claim of Notability in the wiki sense. No WP:RS for any WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 06:59, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bent Trowel

Contested PROD. Article about a future periodical. Totally unreferenced. Reads like a hoax. Please delete. role^player 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The idea exists all right, but it's still your run off the mill idea for a webzine. It hasn't been published. I wouldn't dream of putting my own up here (mine has lasted for a while) and neither should they. A magazine (no matter what medium) with no set publication schedule and no issues released for all intents and purposes does not exist yet. It fails WP:CRYSTALL because there's no reliable non-speculative information to share yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert for non-existent publication (or whatever the general term is). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent, reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BALL. Chasingsol (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete After I earlier nominated it for deletion, the creator placed a link to the actual webzine on the article; it does exist. Creator has also toned down the hamminess of the article (see article discussion). I think it reaches (barely) the WP:NOTABILITY critera. If decision is made to delete, I encourage the creator to start the article again after the 'zine is better established with more outside references to it. Billwhittaker (talk) 14:03, 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 nomination withdrawn. This article can be speedied (CSD A9) if the article about the band is deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows (Creepmime album)

Non-notable album by non-notable band, Creepmime (also on AfD list). Drmies (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle nomination with band AFD. I see no point in discussing these articles separately when the outcome is so obviously dependent on the related articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that--but I'm not that WP:savvy yet... Drmies (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See below, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiaroscuro (album)) Sure--I was just trying to be complete. Guess I should have read the AfD page a little better. I'll gladly withdraw this, with apologies for wasting time and electrons, and with my thanks to MGM. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Baker, broadcaster and journalist, ex-BBC

Seems autobiographical and may fail WP:ENTERTAINER, with possible exception of cited award. Chuckiesdad (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I earlier posted a note about it on the BLP noticeboard but just noticed the AFD. Willking1979 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If references found. If kept redirect to Mike Baker (journalist).--Balloholic (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably the best-known education journalist in the UK. Redirect per Balloholic. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. The article is only 2 days old. More sources might be added. He seems to be fairly well-known and the article does no harm to anyone. Redddogg (talk) 04:44, 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. This article can be speedied (CSD A9) if the article about the band is deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaroscuro (album)

Non-notable album by non-notable band, Creepmime (also on AfD list). Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. I have nothing against your nomination, but the final decision seems to hinge on the outcome of the nomination of the band. If the band is considered notable because of these two albums they have to stay. If the band is deleted, the albums should go per speedy deletion criterion A9 (article about an album for a band we don't have an article on). I don't see the point of individual nominations when they're so clearly linked.- Mgm|^(talk) 23:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--I was just trying to be complete. Guess I should have read the AfD page a little better. I'll gladly withdraw this, with apologies for wasting time and electrons, and with my thanks to MGM. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (person)

Neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged it with a {prod} tag just before you AfD'd it, but we agree that this article is not on a subject that is so significant that Wikipedia needs an article about it at this time, bro. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. The sources listed are not reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as there already is an uncontested PROD up. Let the prod run its course, and re-nominate for AFD if contested. MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as I did not see that the edits were that close together. I was under the impression that it was nominated clearly after it was prodded. I'll remove the prod since we have the AFD discussion already here. MuZemike (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is already in Wikitionary. I don't think a soft redirect wouldn't work as the dab should be towards a slang term and not as a "person" term. MuZemike (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand the usage is otable enough that sources should be looked for to provide encyclopedic coverage; if not found, then is the time to propose deletion. DGG (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--is a WP article seriously saying that one needs American Eagle clothes to be called a 'bro'? This definition is ridiculous. It might well be that there are some general characteristics attached to 'bros' (white, college-age, etc.), but that's hard to source. Besides, this article is pretty silly, just a hoax thought up by some kids who read a funny article on a tunafish blog (see 'reference' 1 to the article). Drmies (talk) 06:14, 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. John254 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (Percy Jackson)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians 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) 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and discuss whether or not to merge All the usual reasons. Every individual statement in the nomination is inapplicable. Merged content in a character combination article does not have to show individual notability, so a merge would appropriate, not deletion, if there is not individual sourcing. Perhaps there is--I don't think it's been looked for; the series is sufficiently notable that something is surely written about it,at least reviews, and they might well discuss this major character in a substantial way. I do not think there is a consensus that real world information is necessary for individual parts of our coverage of fiction, just for the coverage as a whole. There is, however, consensus, that third party sources are not needs as RSs for content in the case of routine description--they are for interpretation, so some of the article needs to be rewritten, but that's not reason for deletion. Just the OR portion needs sourcing or removal, not the whole article. There is no consensus about how much plot detail is necessary or unnecessary. Everything is capable of future improvement, and that there need be an assertion of this is a purely imaginary requirement as far as I can tell invented by TTN. Finally, the encyclopedia contains what is desirable, not the minimum that is necessary. For further background on these nominations, there's an ongoing WP:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:TTN RfArb DGG (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:14, 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. John254 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nico di Angelo (Percy Jackson)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians 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) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether or not to merge , as above. Exactly the same situation. I'll save space by not cut&pasting. DGG (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:15, 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. John254 01:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians 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) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether or not to merge , as above. Exactly the same situation. I'll save space by not cut&pasting. DGG (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:15, 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. John254 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thalia (Percy Jackson)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians 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) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether or not to merge , as above. Exactly the same situation. I'll save space by not cut&pasting. DGG (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:15, 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. John254 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Underwood (Percy Jackson)

This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians 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) 20:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether or not to merge , as above. Exactly the same situation. I'll save space by not cut&pasting. DGG (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:16, 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 close as improper forum as articles (the entire category of D.N.Angel characters, in fact) are already being discussed for merger. Please stop gaming the system, TTN. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Niwa

This character does not establish notability independent of D.N.Angel 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 coverage independent of the character list is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. AfD is not for merge discussions, and merging of the D.N.Angel characters into List of D.N.Angel characters has also been discussed and is supported and in the Anime and manga project's current queue for active work being done (and slowly being done) (even if the article is missing its tag). TTN redirected this article to the existing list without doing a single bit of actual editing or merging, and when it was undone, he began AfDing all the articles rather than just letting the merges happen. This is at least the fourth one today for this series' characters. Why not let us actually do the work we are doing instead of continuing to interrupt on-going work! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 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 close as improper forum as articles (the entire category of D.N.Angel characters, in fact) are already being discussed for merger. Please stop gaming the system, TTN. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Mousy

This character does not establish notability independent of D.N.Angel 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 coverage independent of the character list is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. AfD is not for merge discussions, and merging of these into List of D.N.Angel characters has also been discussed and is supported and in the Anime and manga project's current queue for active work being done (and slowly being done). However apparently TTN feels there is some sort of deadline and doesn't feel actual merging is needed as he, once again, just did a wholescale redirect of all of the character articles without performing any actual merging and completing ignoring the existing discussion. These were reverted, of course, which is why I presume he is doing this AfD, the third one today for this series' characters. Why not let us actually do the work we are doing instead of continuing to interrupt on-going work! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 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 close as improper forum as articles are already being discussed for merger. Please stop gaming the system, TTN. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Harada

This character does not establish notability independent of D.N.Angel 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 coverage independent of the character list is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Oppose all. AfD is not for merge discussions, and all of these are already being properly discussed for merging to List of D.N.Angel characters (and supported), and already in the Anime and manga project's current queue for active work being done. However apparently TTN feels there is some sort of deadline and doesn't feel actual merging is needed as he, once again, just did a wholescale redirect of all of the character articles without performing any actual merging and completing ignoring the existing discussion. These were reverted, of course, which is why I presume he is doing this AfD. Why not let us actually do the work we are doing instead of continuing to interrupt on-going work! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing that needs to be merged, as there is nothing sourced at all, so redirects should have sufficed. It would have been easy enough for someone to add any relevant plot information afterward, but everything has to revert back to the "him vs us" attitude. As these articles have nothing of any real importance, deletion is perfectly viable. TTN (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 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 close as improper forum as articles are already being discussed for merger. Please stop gaming the system, TTN. This is your last warning. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daiki Niwa

This character does not establish notability independent of D.N.Angel 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 coverage independent of the character list is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per nominator does not demonstrate independent or real world notability and, perhaps most importantly, is not covered by reliable third party sources. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. These pages are a complete failure of WP:NOT policy. JBsupreme (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not appropriate for removing valid data. All of the characters are covered at least marginally in third party sources, and merging to the character list is a more appropriate optoin to deletion, which was already being dealt with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties, so I oppose merging at this juncture. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. AfD is not for merge discussions, and all of these are already being properly discussed for merging to List of D.N.Angel characters (and supported), and already in the Anime and manga project's current queue for active work being done. However apparently TTN feels there is some sort of deadline and doesn't feel actual merging is needed as he, once again, just did a wholescale redirect of all of the character articles without performing any actual merging and completing ignoring the existing discussion. These were reverted, of course, which is why I presume he is doing this AfD. Why not let us actually do the work we are doing instead of continuing to interrupt on-going work! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't demonstrate notability through reliable, third party sources on top of them all being about two or three paragraphs long. Nothing to merge here. On an unrelated note, I'm finding it humorous that AnmaFinotera is all up in arms about deleting articles up until TTN nominates one of her favorite subjects. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of D.N.Angel characters. Information, even if it is in-universe information, should be preserved. --Malkinann (talk) 22:30, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Road

Delete - Non notable road which happens to have a couple of buildings on it - like most would. Being the location of national headquarters is not notable. The organisation is, the road isn't. Headquarters could move to Bmzef Road tomorrow. Would that make this street notable. No. Balloholic (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of Ireland. Anyone searching for this road need only know of its one shining light of notability. --Balloholic (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The streets on which major diplomatic missions & headquarters are located in a national capital are notable. it was boldly redirected by then nominator while the afd was in progress, an action which is discouraged, so I reverted it per WP:BRD. I note the policy that Guntness cites was written by himself and is on his own user space.DGG (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is used by many across many articles and this has been stated before. Grutness is a good commonsense editor and don't you forget it. --Balloholic (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a major road in an upmarket area of a capital city. It is the location of numerous institutions, dignitaries and major buildings. Insofar as the WP:50k idea means anything, this road certainly qualifies by virtue of its ranking within the community. There are thousands of sources which mention this road for this reason - too numerous to trawl through in detail right now. The article should obviously not be deleted since, if nothing else, it is clearly a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't make me choke. This is clear favouritism on the part of some American who can't bear to lose the location of one of their embassies. We can't have every street in the world with an embassy on it! That would be about 500 per country times 200 and be like 50,000 little nooks and crannies all in existence, most just with a line saying they have an embassy and no potential for improvement. This isn't local geography class! --Balloholic (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created this article appears to be Irish, not American. And you did not notify him of this nomination - tsk. And why replace the article with this AFD discussion which is already longer and has less potential for improvement. You realise that none of this, not even the article, is actually deleted and so you are causing the number of nooks and crannies to grow, not shrink? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is bad form and very objectionable. The public nooks and crannies are being reduced but behind the scenes they will always grow due to the folly of editors such as yourself who beat down commonsense with a stick and thrash it raw. There was no way it would have been speedily deleted and anyway I decided to be kind and allow everyone the chance to wave goodbye before it disappears forever from public view. I think you know that I handled it correctly - and I was referring to those who want it kept, not the creator (who being Irish is therefore local) who I decided was best should remain innocent from this murderous and shameful debacle I think you'll agree. --Balloholic (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is public too and it is a curious paradox that we should add to the public nooks and crannies here over a desire to obstruct access to a piece of more useful information. And, FWIW, I am not American either. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Americans, Englishmen(and women) and Dubliners should out themselves as such and remove themselves immediately from the conversation. These will not be able to maintain a neutral stance. 31 counties should be able to decide between them the solution to this horrendous problem. I am in no way connected to any of the above ethnic majorities. --Balloholic (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG and the Colonel Warden, a major street in a capital city that has numerous important buildings. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Reply - How is this a major street. The buildings may be important, they have their own articles, but that is hardly a reason to have an article on a minor street. If that were the case then there would be an article on every street in Dublin. --Balloholic (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the buildings are important but the street isn't? That makes about as much sense as saying a city is important but the country it's in isn't. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That is quite a stupid comparisson to make. Are you serious. So should we create an article on every street, avenue, road, whatever, in every town in every country because they have a few "notable" buildings. That would be nice. Joe's Road in the tiny village of (insert any village in the world) has a church located on it. Oh, that's notable because it has a building on it. We'll keep it there so. --Balloholic (talk) 21:40, 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 speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Fryett

No ghits for "Nicholas Fryett" or "Nicholas James Fryett" indicating any substantiation to the bio. Blatant hoax. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - He's from the future - 2009!!!--Balloholic (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment User named Nickfryett created this article entitled Nicholas Fryett. Raised eyebrows here.--Balloholic (talk) 20:07, 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 Speedy deletion as copy of Ike Taylor. Agathoclea (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Dick

No ghits for "justin dick football" or "justin dick steelers" - hoax. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:30, 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 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tristen Gedeon

Fails notability re: WP:ENTERTAINER Chuckiesdad (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Self-promotion page. Chasingsol (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur--vanity, promotion. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent reliable sources can be found which establish notability and verify the facts in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Vanity Page fails WP:ENTERTAINER.(LAmusic3 (talk) 01:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten School

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating Sherman Oaks (character), Bernie Bridges, The Big Blueberry Barf-Off!, and I. B. Rotten.[reply]

Keep - Various references, See [8]. --Balloholic (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any sources in that search that show WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my mistake. --Balloholic (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several publications, including USA Today called him the biggest selling children's author in the world. Probably before J.K. Rowling came along, but with a reliable source making that claim, I'd say that WP:BK criterion #5 applies to the author and his work (even if his work isn't taught in literature classes; that last bit is biased against present day children's literature). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for sources: this one lists the plot details [This site says the Hollywood Reporter is talking about a film adaptation] and I'm sure that a few hours in a newspaper archive would yield more helpful sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all very adequate sourcing for notability, and an unaccountable failure to search for references or information before nominating. Whether we should have separate articles for all the books and character will need to be discussed separately. DGG (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did search for sources before nominating. It says that in my nomination. How is it adequate sourcing when the Kids Reads link does not show notability? (it's not a for sure thing that there will be a film). Schuym1 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the author being described in multiple reliable sources as the world's biggest selling children's author causes this to pass WP:BK criterion 5. It doesn't really matter if he's now been outsold per WP:NTEMP. Wiw8 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of sources found by a Google News archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about we compile all the characters and books together into one article (mentally) and then split the books into one article together in a list, and then put all the characters together in a list article? Rory the Slitheen (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but the most important thing in any case is to improve the material. Based on The Big Blueberry Barf-Off!: a list of chapters for a fiction book is not encyclopedic content. Neither is the "List of Morning announcements" or the List of what's on the Back covers. I would also rewrite the plot section more concisely to make it sound less like a book-jacket type description, e.g. "he has one tiny problem... how would he get the pies?" Based on Sherman Oaks (character), I'd indicate just where in the series he displays his characteristics, and I have my doubts about the list of things he owns. The higher quality these articles are, the less likely they are to get deleted. DGG (talk) 13:25, 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 keep. John254 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Smith

A silversmith who seems to be entirely known for making a teapot. I searched him for Google, and it seems like his teapot is more notable than him. The article has an advertisement feel to it. Tavix (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing came up here. Interesting teapot though [9]... Chasingsol (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I would expect nothing to come up in Google News, he made the Teapot over 12 years ago... Tavix (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although since he's still around, I was perhaps hopeful that he'd made some waves recently with Teapot II. ;) I had done a good check of Google as well (I'll be sure to mention that in the future), and found much of nothing to establish notability. Chasingsol (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you did a Google check or else you couldn't have come up with the picture of the teapot. Tavix (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work is part of a permanent collection at a notable museum. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MacGyverMagic is correct, though some will disagree. The individual has proven his notability by creating an item worthy of being observed by a mass of people, in this incident, the Museum. A person may try to fly to the Moon, is this notable? If, however, he lands and returns he is notable. Simply put, the pot made him notable. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the matter is not quite as simple as Royalhistorian says. People who do things of no particular significance, but are noted widely in the tabloid press for the human interest of it, and not notable, by ONEEVENT and NOTNEWS. Producing a work of art worthy of a major museum is of cultural significance and notable, but a child who produces a pot that wins the school prize for the year is not. Neil Armstrong did fly to the moon, and is thus notable; but a crank who tries in his backyard and gets on the TV for it is probably not. DGG (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cultural significance of the teapot he created. WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply to this as the teapot became part of a museum's permanent collection. Wiw8 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 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 no consensus. The discussion suggests that a second AfD may well result in deletion if the list is not reworked into something other than a link farm. Some added value (such as a table indicating size, geographical location etc.) would help here. Sandstein 09:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Switzerland

I have deleted the previous list and inserted a brand new one from the Swiss Banking Comission Site. the site swconsult.ch lists banks from 1997, some of which do not even exist, therefore cannot be used as a verifiable source. I have added external links to around 130 of the banks mentioned with plans to link the rest by Tuesday. Once completed, this article can be used to compliment the banking in Switzerland article and will be unique in the sense that no other site will provide this scope and depth with links to individual bank sites as this will. Throttlebaytalk 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. This is spam, even for notable companies. A category would do better here, as it would actually list articles Wikipedia has articles on. As of now, this is just a directory of off-site weblinks, and that's not an encyclopedia article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category would work better. Besides, the entire page could be replaced far more comprehensively using this link. Chasingsol (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: Having had a look at Template:List of banks in Europe, it looks like every bluelink in that template could be deleted for the same reasons. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Chasingsol (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider policy-level deletion of similar lists pointed above by User:NurseryRhyme. Rationale: bank listings are too fluid to be tracked and updated reliably. Things got worse with the 2008 financial crisis developing into 2009 depression: banks go down and merge one by one and in droves, and a lot of small bank reorganizations are unnoticed by the media (who cares about a small bank when the big ones cry for help). These directories have any value only when complete and up-to-date, if not - delete. NVO (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's something to be said for a list of Swiss banks. The term swiss bank is notable enough, but this list doesn't offer anything a category couldn't and right now it's utter linkspam. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A3) — Virtually no content; nothing but a linkfarm. MuZemike (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this should look more like List of banks in the United Kingdom. Juzhong (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and purge If the banks are limited to those notable, its a valid list, and would be more than a category if the date and locations were added. I suspect a good number of these would in fact warrant articles if checked. Although our category Banks in Switzerland, has only 22 included, the deWP category [10] has 119, fully one-third of those here. Perhaps some hasty judgments above need some revision in view of that figure. DGG (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a proper list -- This article is at present a link-farm. The value of lists such as this is to identify missing articles, but with the present structure this is impossible, becuase it is largely a list of external links, not a list of redlinks. Since Switzerland is not an English-speaking country, it is not surprising that most of the banks do not yet have articles. This really ought to be a long list of redlinks, which would encourage people to write articles on those banks that are notable. It is no good replacing it with a category as that cannot handle red links. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace external links with wikilinks (yes, red-links if the article doesn't exist) for notable banks; the German category should give a rough idea of what Swiss banks are notable. DHowell (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (1) narrow scope of list (e.g., top 100 by assets) and (2) convert to a list with redlinks; imho a list with fewer redlinks would imply more notable banks, and support the inclusion of such a list -- Robocoder (t|c) 14:42, 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 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thormanby Road

Non-notable road which just simply joins "a" to "b", like every road on earth, except of course the cul de sac! Balloholic (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prosified maps are not articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. How many more non-notable Dunlin roads you got there Balloholic? Newbridge Avenue next? Grutness...wha? 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you point it out - yes - thanks...--Balloholic (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one does indeed not indicate anything particualr about notability, which is the factor. Not an numerical quota from an essay. , but the individual notability. DGG (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- please no more articles on NN Dublin streets. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 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 Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Park Avenue (Dublin)

Delete - Non-notable road which only appears to be notable due to the facilities located on it. Balloholic (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Keep: Many roads are notable because of the facilities located on them, such as Oxford Street, to use an extreme example. This particular road has more going for it than many of those listed in [11]. Per nom. (forgive my newness around these parts) Chasingsol (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, but, take Exampletown for example. Just because Examplestreet in Exampletown has Example Shopping Centre, Example Football Pitch and Example Church...doesit make the street itself notable. Oxford Street is Europe's busiest shopping street, as well as the most dense. --Balloholic (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the information given it appears notable, though sourcing should be improved. There are no numerical quotas for articles on a subject, we consider them individually. The cited essay is an essay, giving one person's view. It';s not useless to have it as some indication of the order of magnitude involved. Personally, though, I think its too stringent by at least a figure of 5, and even more so for for important cities like national capitals--particularly historic ones. The facilities along it indicate its importance as a hub for sports activities. A street is important for what is located there. DGG (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That leads to building "coatrack" articles. In any case, Wikipedia's criterion is notability, not importance. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have said, for what's on it, among other things, such as events there, and literary use.
    You know, the guideline does not explain the difference: My own view is that everything important is notable, and a good many things that aren't actually important, but have some significance in the world none the less. DGG (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We had a whole poll explaining the difference, at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Fame and importance. Notability is not fame and importance. Notable things can be unimportant to most of the world, and important things can be completely non-notable. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How is it notable? Is every street in every town, village or city in the world notable because it has buildings on it. Is a street notable because there is a football pitch or a church on it. If that were the case then there would be a large volume of articles created just for that reason. What makes this street more interesting than the rest and makes it more deserving of an article. --Balloholic (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOTABILITY which explains that the concept is based upon whether the subject has been noticed by other writers. Your personal views on the subject's importance, interest or deserving nature are quite irrelevant to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is taking the article on trust. Heeding the warning at Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, I'm not. Looking for sources to confirm anything in this article, I find that the cricket grounds that are supposedly on Park Avenue are (according to their own WWW site, at least) in fact on Sydney Parade Avenue (AfD discussion). So pseudo-notability, based upon the article's claims, seems to fall at the very first checking the information out fence. I have found no evidence of real notability. Unlike several of the other Dublin streets nominated for deletion by this editor, I find, upon looking for sources to establish notability — as we are all supposed to be doing here, remember? Not guessing according to what the article claims about how important the subject is. — that there aren't any sources that document this street in depth. Indeed, as mentioned, I cannot even find sources that confirm even the current content. If there's something documenting a "Church of St John" on this road, it's not in any book, newspaper article, or WWW page that I can find. There are no in-depth sources on this subject to be had. The Primary Notability Criterion is not satisifed. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a selection of 8 sources covering the geography, history and contemporary interest in this place. It seems to be the most fashionable and sought-after address in all of Ireland and the value of its property can measured in billions. As for the sports grounds, there seem to be several. The Pembroke Cricket Club shares its grounds with a rugby club and they are certainly located here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still suggest more needs to be done. More sources (preferrably some genuine online ones too) and the like. Perhaps the best solution would be a list of Park Avenues with a redirect from this page. --Balloholic (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've done a bit of reaching. Your sources:
    1. de Courcy (two of your sources) is actually documenting the Liffey, and mentions this road entirely tangentially, in passing, as the modern street address of one erstwhile part of the river.
    2. Gifford and Seidman are actually talking about the Sisters of Charity, and again mention this road entirely tangentially, in passing, as a street address, saying nothing at all about the road.
    3. Blacker is actually talking about the Convent of the Immaculate Conception, and like Gifford and Seidman give this road name merely as a street address, without saying anything at all about the road.
    4. The Mirror is actually documenting house prices in Dublin 4, and mentions this road merely as a street address of one of the houses in Dublin 4 that was sold for a large amount of money, again without saying anything at all about the road.
    5. The Irish Times is discussing the same house, and another one, again only mentioning the road as the street address of both.
    6. Somerville-Large actually says "in the neighbourhood of Sandymount and Park Avenue", and by trying to shoe-horn this into an article about this road you have actually misrepresented the source.
    7. Google doesn't let me read "Studies", but the content that you've based upon it isn't about the road.
  - As I said, there are no in-depth sources documenting this road. All of your sources actually document other subjects, and mention this subject as a street address, without documenting anything at all about it. Creating an article about a road simply from a list of sources that only mention it as a street address doesn't make an encyclopaedia article, any more than collecting mentions of a subject in popular culture does. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not have to be greater than the sum of its parts. In any case, the Irish Times article is entitled "Light and bright on Park Avenue" and starts "Park Avenue in Sandymount hit the headlines earlier this year." The Irish Times is the premier journal of record in Ireland and here we have it headlining this avenue more than once. So, we have both direct references and numerous incidental mentions. And this is just what I have added in some idle moments using the keyhole views afforded by Google. From what I've seen, I would expect to have little difficulty writing a book about this place, should I want to, and our editing policy explicitly encourages us to develop articles in this way. Moreover, since the address alone is certainly notable, the article title should be retained for search purposes and deletion would therefore be unhelpful to our readers, as compared with merger or redirection. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I do not know Dublin, but the description makes me think this is more of a neighbourhood article than just one on a street. Or can we merge some of the content to an article on the neighbourhood? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The road runs from Sandymount to Ballsbridge. These are the best areas of Dublin - something like the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The road is thus the Irish equivalent of NY's Park Avenue, as the article says. Should we delete it because it is Irish rather than American? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we should delete it because Dublin is not and never will be New York. That is a blooming ridiculous comparison. It runs between two areas. The two areas get their own articles. But a road which just runs between and has nothing else important to say for itself? Fair enough if such a road in Wexford or Castlebar or Tralee gets its own article but I'm not buying it at all. --Balloholic (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice it is the same editors who want all the streets kept yet cannot give valid arguments and seem to just be in love with keeping each street as it is. That is extreme inclusionism of the type that should be outlawed. --Balloholic (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mound, Louisiana - an inconsequential place of just 3 households. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walnut Street (Philadelphia) - another grand street in a major city. Both were overwhelmingly kept. It is knee-jerk deletionism which should be outlawed as itdrives away productive editors, is contrary to policy and interferes with our editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mound, Louisiana is a village not a street or road. Settlement acknowledged by U.S. Census Bureau. Walnut Street (Philadelphia) - "another grand street in a major city". A grand street it may be. This one is not. A major city. Dublin is the capital of Ireland but calling it a major city is something else. This is a minor avenue of no real encyclopedic purpose. Do not compare Philadelphia to Dublin. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. --Balloholic (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep citations show that the subject meets the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - How exactly does it do this. Explain yourself. Your vote is not valid if you don't give a proper explanation.--Balloholic (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The numerous citations show it meets the GNG. This isn't a vote, and you don't get to decide what opinion is valid. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Reply - Of course it's a vote. You suggested "keep". Was that just inserted by accident or did you mean to type it in. F.Y.I., I know I don't decide what opinion is valid, I was just giving you a bit of advice my dear friend. --Balloholic (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen, it may resemble a vote but for whatever reason we're not supposed to acknowledge that it is essentially a vote. We are all just expressing our opinions. RMHED (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey Doke...I just hope you understand my comments above. Thanks --Balloholic (talk) 22:11, 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. (G3 speedy) Black Kite 18:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television CD

Seems to be a slightly modified copy of Video CD with no reason given for creation of article or changes. Claims created in 1985, but no evidence for that and digital format at that time sounds unlikely. Only ever created/edited by a single user who has only ever edited that article and a redirect to it. At best "Television CD" might be another term for Video CD?- but even Googling that turns up nothing of note. (Deletion proposal would include TVCD redirect). Ubcule (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Cut-and-paste vandallism of Video CD, misrepresents sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agree, why would there be a distinct CD format that does exactly the same thing as a Video CD? Could find no references anywhere to this format. Chasingsol (talk) 18:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Enlightenment Department

Spammy - the source article - http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A - looks spammy as well B (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - government departments are notable. Sure the page is spammy, in fact it is very spammy, but with such pages we tag and clean up, not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Religious Enlightenment Department" gets 2 g-hits. The article reads mostly like something spat out by an automated translator. Actually, on further review, using Google translator, it looks like the thing is copied is a copyvio from [12]. Compare [13] and [14]. Look for "administrative decision No. 778 for the year 1996" and you can see that the two are the same. An English translation of a copyvio article is still a copyvio. --B (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, articles that are blatant advertisement and/or copyvio are reasons for deletion. This is made clear in the deletion policy. MuZemike (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/G12) if this is not a copyvio as noted above, then this is blatant advertisement. MuZemike (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with some RS and fixes the possible copyvio--I'm unconvinced translation is automagically a copyvio, but it's still poor English. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WITH no prejudice to recreation. If someone can use reliable third party sources to recreate then it should stand. As it. As it is there is no reliable information on this page. gren グレン 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think posting a translation of copyrighted material would itself be a copyvio, in which case Speedy delete. Of course, no opposition to recreation if someone rewrites it in their own words and sources it adequately. ITAQALLAH 01:03, 25 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 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

AfDs for this article:

This game was not notable at the time of the article's creation (i.e. the game itself). The original sources only asserted notability for a proposed article titled Muslim Massacre game controversy.

Following the usual arguments to keep at the original Afd that "Google says yes", the article, as both a game article or a controversy article, still stands as a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS.

Per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, this article has not demonstrated any reason why the Muslim Massacre game controversy is worthy of an article. The controversy has generated no further debate beyond the initial news sources. The controversy has generated no lasting cultural, social or intellectual changes in video gaming or the wider world. The controversy has not been the subject of any third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources. At best, as the passage of time has shown, this content is, and always was, something for Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE Per the Afd guidelines, please actually read the nomination before you register an opinion in this debate, "speedy" or otherwise. I want to assume this is done by everybody, but based on the first three contributors, I have doubts this is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the first three contributors didn't agree with your argument is far from "people not reading your nomination". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I feel it's notable. It has appeared in more than several media outlets (as per first AfD). There has been considrable controversy around the game's creation. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: So eager to keep was the above voter, that they voted before I had even created the Afd page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I saw this on my watchlist and then saw the page. There was no warning from the creator of this AfD that this was still in construction. No need to scorn me. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the page being a redlink would have shown the Afd was still under-construction. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These comments, MickMacNee, are really inappropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: See previous Afd. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Massacre:_The_Game_of_Modern_Religious_Genocide. Chasingsol (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per previous Afd" does not address the reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Well-sourced, and covered in multiple reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts which aren't disputed by me in the nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently so. You disputed the notability and how well-sourced it was at all points, and it was determined back in the day that it is notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability guidelines for video game Wikipedia:TOY#Video_games do not discuss anything about lasting impact or media coverage after the initial release. The subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, thus meeting the general notability guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define "subject". There are two elements to the content, the game and the controversy. A claim of notability made under WP:TOY for this sort of amateur unlicensed release is clearly riding on the back of NEWS coverage of the controversy. One review source was quite explicit about this - he was not initially going to review the game until he saw the controversy, he stated he regretted having been conned into doing so because the game in his opinion clearly would not have warranted any notability as a game. The controversy is what needs to have demonstrated lasting third party comment beyond initial news sources, in order to not violate NOT#NEWS and justify the content - it hasn't. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I may be missing something, but it looks like there are plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. I also thought that WP:NOT#NEWS pertains primarily to articles about events and not necessarily concrete objects like video games that are backed by print and/or online sources. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an event, the controversial release of a video game. It is simply gaming the Afd process to say that the presence of news sources that only exist because of the temporarily controversial event can then be transplanted to establish notability for the game that, had it not been for the controversial event, would never have been notable as a game. It's totally ass about face. MickMacNee (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the article is not about the "event" of the controversial release of a video game, but is about the game itself and the controversy it caused. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies here for this reason. A game that caused controversy covered in multiple reliable sources isn't akin to an event that happened to be announced in a newspaper. Wiw8 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you assume good faith and be more civil rather than accusing me of gaming and being "ass about face." In other words. It's not like anyone is out to get you or anything. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you require "third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources", right? here you go. Juzhong (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Non admin AFD closure as keep at 11am, 21st Dec by User:Neurolysis here. Closure reverted at 11:40am as premature by User:MickMacNee here. Wiw8 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at least two of the citations provide an actual game review, providing commentry beyond the event itself. I understand the nominator's application of NOT#NEWS, and indeed all the references in the article are from September (it's not a subject that has "received significant coverage over a period of time".) But aren't most games reviewed in the month that they are released anyway? Marasmusine (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has received significant coverage in a wide range of multiple reliable sources, most of which specifically discuss this game and the controversy in detail, rather than just making passing mentions. This article therefore satisfies WP:N and WP:V, the sources satisfy WP:RS, so I can't see a valid reason for deletion. Whether the article was notable at the exact time of its creation is not relevant now, as long as it has become notable at some point since then, which this has. Also, it is not necessary to show ongoing media coverage and interest in order to pass WP:N because notability is not temporary. Wiw8 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A note about my WP:SNOW closure, SNOW is based on a demonstration that a discussion will blatantly close in a particular way, it does not require any specific criteria. My close was based on the fact that the keep votes are supported by policy, making the nominator's argument null. — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your analysis of the debate as a snowball keep, I suppose it could be argued that the nominator was still commenting heavily in an attempt to make their case, which is one of the suggested criteria for not snowball closing. However, that could have been brought up in a deletion review if really felt necessary. While administrators can revert non-admin closures they believe were premature, I don't think non-admins are supposed to simply revert a closure, regardless of whether it was non-admin. Wiw8 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep as offensive as the game is, it's pretty much a textbook definition of a notable game. There are a lot of reliable third-party sources that have covered this game because of its controversy. Sure, the controversy was braindead shock value that generated a flash of cheap publicity rather than any enduring impact. But notability is not temporary. An entirely notable game that can be written about in an encyclopedic manner. Randomran (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't see why it shouldn't be notable. Article is factual and neutral. Game is no more or no less sick than e.g. Wolfenstein (series). There would appear to be precedent for having articles on this type of subject. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's about 9 to 1, which indicates a 90% consensus to keep, which is more than enough that there's no way that it would ever result in delete. Snowball keep yet? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep, as the article has met all notability guidelines and consensus for Keep is clear at this point. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:27, 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 merge to List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smunday

This episode does not establish notability independent of Malcolm in the Middle 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. TTN (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the tests for notability and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Television episodes. Not necessary to merge into List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes as that article already has the pertinent info (air date, etc.) and an (overly long) plot synopsis. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Covered elsewhere in List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes. Chasingsol (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - As above.--Balloholic (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some other episodes are redirects too. It points readers to the correct location and it's unlikely to be a page required by some other topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect and/or merge to List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes. This nomination fails WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles, which says to avoid AfD unless the article is "completely unverifiable or original research". An episode which is available on DVD for anyone to view is not completly unverifiable, and purely descriptive information about the episode is not original research. In addition, a full page of information about this episode is in the book What Science Offers the Humanities, pages 134-135. DHowell (talk) 05:33, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Book)

This is a self-published novel by a young author. I originally prodded this, but a reliable source [15] (published, oddly, on the same day that I prodded the article) has been added. I don't think that a single local newspaper article is enough for this novel to meet the notability guideline for books. The article's edit history also shows that there is conflict of interest. Bláthnaid ^talk 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid that despite the reliable source, the kid's been duped. Outskirts Press is a self-publishing outfit. If memory serves me correct, they don't send acceptance letters, but if they do, it means preciously little, because they'd accept anything as long as the writer coughs up the dough in advance (rather than paying them first which is the professional way of working in publishing). There's even multiple cheaper options. If he chose Outskirts himself, I pity him for wasting money he could've spent on publishing 2-3 other books. (Disclosure: Former Lulu.com support volunteer, and amateur writer myself) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator, please strike the comment about about COI because it's not a valid reason for deletion.

On its own, COI isn't a reason for deletion. I mentioned COI here because I think that COI is one of the things that shows that this book isn't notable and that the article was created for promotional reasons--if the book truly was notable enough for Wikipedia, uninterested editors would have created and edited the article. Bláthnaid ^talk 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree for deletion, due to the lack of notability. Sharpbrood (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 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 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Hunter (film director)

Assertion of notability appear to be limited to non-notable films and companies. No reliable sources to assert subject as notable film director. - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources? I have listed several external links that prove Mr. Hunter is a film director. Your opinion if what is or is not "notable" or popular enough is your opinion alone and does not reflect any rules or criteria made by Wikipedia. All comments and items listed in the article are 100% true historical fact. I am new to Wiki however, and would appreciate any assistance you might give to make the article more sustainable. jwh3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwh3 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jwh3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The one source is imdb, which is just a listing of all films made. See notability for films, reliable sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually I have given you three sources and there are more. IMDB, AMAZON.COM, CREATESPACE.COM, WITHOUTABOX.COM, YOUTUBE.COM, INDIEFLIX.COM

I have read the guidelines for film notability, and again that falls within the category of personal taste and opinion. Mr. Hunter's films were released, distributed, and of public interest. And the fact that he made those films at such a young age further argues my case for inclusion. Jwh3 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The Amazon sources state This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.. CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues. Chasingsol (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThis product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.

So what? Does that mean James Hunter doesn't exist??

"CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues."

Yes but not anybody has the resume or filmography of James Hunter. Again, these are opinions based on taste and preference, and your remarks are prejudicial in the least. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "not notable"

Define "notable" please. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: Wikipedia notability is described here.. Also, please try to be WP:CIVIL. Chasingsol (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: This also appears to be WP:CONFLICT. User:Jwh3 appears to be the subject of the article itself, per their user page. I have also reinstated the Afd after it was removed from the page here. Chasingsol (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, as well as appearing to be a WP:CoI Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 02:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting the general or any specific notability guidelines. WP:COI doesn't help either. Cheers, CP 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would delete for the present because of lack of independent references and the strength of the moves and roles therein. However, this may change in the future. Good luck. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No one is denying that Mr. Hunter is a film director, or that Amazon sells his stuff on demand. However, the WP community does deny that sites like YouTube.com offer independent verification of notability. Moreover, the COI issue is a bit too self-evident here; not that it takes away from possible notability, but it does raise questions about the believability of some of the statements. Then again, a thorough edit has removed much of the unverifiable and trivial content. What's left is not necessarily questionable, but it's also not notable. Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters. I could go on. Subject, until proven otherwise (and I know one WP editor is on the case, perhaps he'll turn up something I (or the original author!) couldn't), is not notable; article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found which establish the subject's notability and verify the facts in the article. No prejudice against recreation if such sources subsequently become available. Wiw8 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyArticle has been re-written and it is my opinion that the sources cited are notable. Article should NOT be deleted. This was the first article I have written for Wiki give me a break.

Reply"Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters." You are being trivial and showing real ignorance. Hundreds and thousands have, but not at ages 14 and 17, and not producing those results, and certainly not in rural Alabama. Mr. Hunter was a local celebrity at that time. However, sufficient time has passed making this virtually impossible to prove. Also, I happen to know that Mr, Hunter didn't move to L.A. to "make it big" and end up as a waiter. In fact, he worked as a waiter for half a day and walked out. Mr. Hunter is at best a C-list celebrity, at worst he is a working actor. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT IF YOU PLAN TO CRITICIZE OR INSULT.

Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008

Delete but do not salt I've made a good faith effort to search for RS coverage of this James Hunter, but end up finding the musician, a colonial painter, high school athletes, a guy going to prison... When a guy doing time for writing bad checks comes up higher than you in a Google News search, you know you've got a PR problem. The author's questionable behavior is excusable per his newness to Wikipedia--frankly, the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side. Still, at the end of the day, there needs to be verifiability, and IMDb doesn't cut it. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the other comments below, let's not pile on here. Yes, this should be deleted as it stands now. But the author has not expressed an intention to recreate this article (that I've seen), nor has this article been created multiple times previously. If it's recreated in substantially the same form, it's already going to be subject to a G4 speedy deletion. Salting the title is not merited by the interactions I've seen here--salting should be more about protecting the encyclopedia and/or targets of BLP violations from egregious issues, not for "sticking it to" new editors who try to contribute something that's not notable and react with misguided but understandable vehemence when "their" article goes bye-bye. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyEverything you've just said is not very helpful at all. Except this: "the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side." Thanks for that. You wont find our James Hunter writing bad checks, and there is no official website for him. You're relying only on Google? What a joke. IMDB is much more trustworthy. Verifiability? Try making up a phony film and getting it listed on IMDB. It is my opinion that Omarcheeseboro started this out of a personal bias against Mr. Hunter. You're not gonna find much for our James Hunter on Google, since he was making films before the internet went online. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008

- - So the only helpful thing he said was the one thing in your defense? Quite the one-sided view on things. Anyway, no one said this James Hunter writes bad checks. Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability. IMDB is not considered an indicator for notability and since most of the info is user added, it's also not always reliable. Claiming Omarcheeseboro has a personal bias against James Hunter is a completely baseless accusation and serious assumption of bad faith. Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits because his films were made before the dawn of internet, is quite frankly laughable. I guess Ludwig van Beethoven, who wrote all his music before the internet, is just a fluke with over 4 million hits then.--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this person has been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article does not show a shred of notability. ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply"Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability." Google is a joke. Example:Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. So what if Mr. Hunter doesn't have a publicist. That doesn't make his work any less real. "Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits" Is that your only argument? Google hits? LOL

And this: assumption of bad faith encapsulates the entire crusade against the inclusion the the James Hunter article. Thank. Ok last time:

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1SO/

www.indieflix.com/Films/RobinHoodPrinceofSherwood

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1T8/

www.indieflix.com/Films/TheRiverBridge

Not fancy enough for you? Ok here we go with the film festivals. YAWN:

ROBIN HOOD:

George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1231 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0003 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4440 Entry date: March 13, 2006

RIVER BRIDGE:

George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1230 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0004 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Westwood International Film Festival Tracking ID: 06-1014 Entry date: February 08, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4186 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Atlanta Film Festival Tracking ID: 3932 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Los Angeles Film Festival Tracking ID: 8796 Entry date: January 01, 2006

VERIFIED. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You fail to debunk any of the opposing arguments. Entering your films at a film festival does not make one notable. Furthermore, this is about notability, not whether James Hunter and his films exist. Your rather hostile defense of this article is not doing you any favors, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Jwh3 has now been blocked for 1 week by Smashville for disruptive editing/personal attacks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Obviously autobiographical. JuJube (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. I have credits on IMDB and there's no Wikipedia page on me, as there obviously shouldn't be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any chance an admin can snowball close/delete this one? – ukexpat (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Respectfully request this one be blocked from re-creation for the time being because of statement here from now banned user. Chasingsol (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the salt. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's blocked for a week, not banned, but the salt is probably a good idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events."[16] Let's wait and see what actually happens. — Satori Son 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, with a tinge of vainglorious COI Theserialcomma (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author is subject of article, and protect from recreation, per all the hilarity posted above. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per not a single, solitary reliable source to establish notability (or anything else). I don't undey therstand why these can't be speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the low level of intelligence with which most of you are exhibiting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It states absolute fact and is backed up by the most reputable movie database in the entire world. And those of you who are crying "vanity" are only envious. I have yet to see any real reason from any of you as to why this article should be deleted other than you just don't like it. I can name hundreds of articles like that but I dont need to delete them. Its very simple, if you dont like James Hunter dont look at his page. Move on. And to those of you who are asking Wiki to block recreation, you deserve a high position in either the Bush Administration or the Nazi party. This is ridiculous. Jwh3 (talk23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.7.9 (talk)

- Comment: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jwh3#User:Jwh3

*cmt Please don't call anyone stupid here again. As for you, you apparently continue to fail to read the relevant policies on sourcing, notability, etc... Here they are for your reading pleasure. WP:NOTE WP:COI WP:RS WP:RF. Happy editing, and cut the accusations.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:51, 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 Nomination withdrawn --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/old version

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yes/old version

Dicdef. Outcome of delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word), but kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes. Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition. Taemyr (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Nom no longer feels that the article should be deleted.[reply]

I'm not quite clear why this still exists given that first AfD, and not sure why it wasn't shot down as a recreation in that second AfD, so I'm just going to vote on its merits: Delete as dictdef with no encyclopædic content. --fvw* 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the first two AFDs pertained to wildly different versions of the same article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is the AFD named after a temporary page? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it was a temporary page when I nominated it. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sentence words. Nominator change of hearts from this set of edits. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, but keep at least one article, preferably both. Currently, the Yes and no article, a longish article, has a link to this AfD discussion; the page sentence words also exists and is short. I opposed changing Yes from an article to a disambiguation page because I wanted to add material about answers to negative questions in various languages; there are interesting things to say, not only about the words "yes" and "no" in various languages but also about replies such as "It is." or "Yes, it is." etc. and words such as "si" (French) and "doch" (German), so I would like an article (e.g. "Yes" or "Yes and no") where such information can go; if "yes and no" is only about the English words, perhaps another article is needed ("Replies to questions" or something, maybe). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be less confused when you read the article and see that the French three-form system is already covered therein, as are languages that use echo responses (such as "It is.") rather than yes/no words. ☺
  Personally, I think that the correct article to be getting rid of at this point is no, so that no (disambiguation) can stand in its place, with the lead linking to yes and no, just like the lead in yes does. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Um, I'll be less confused when I read which one of the articles?
  
  Factual error in nomination statement: Taemyr said "Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition". In fact, I expressed opposition and continue to oppose due to the above-mentioned material I wanted to add; and after it was converted to a dab page has been (arguably) converted back into an article [17] by another editor but this was reverted. (By the way, apparently the Oct. 3 conversion to dab page was done by cut-and-paste move, repaired on Dec. 20 by Anthony Appleyard.)
  
  Please clarify which article is being proposed for deletion. For example, I wouldn't want to see the relatively lengthy material currently in Yes and no deleted based on a discussion in which users really meant some other article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was mistaken. I had assumed that you agreed that the possibility that Yes is ambiguous is better treated at wt:yes. Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
    The article I nominated for deletion was a pure dicdef of the word yes, and as such had focus on the usage of the word. IMO such an article would not be appropriate for wikipedia.
    
    The current article is far more so my deletion vote is withdrawn. Although I feel the article should focus on the consepts,ie. sentence words and the two(/three/four) form systems, and not on the words. That however is not a discussion for AfD.Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 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 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Martinez

Bio (possibly auto-bio, not that that is a reason for deletion) of a film editor of questionable notability. Original article was overtly promotional however when pruning and neutralising I realised that there was very little substance to it at all - worked, here, worked there, set up a company, closed a company and so on. The Pump/Aerosmith connection is the only notability asserted however struggling to find any reliable sources to backup. Nancy ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources for this via gnews. There are plenty of hits for "Peter Martinez", but I couldn't find anything related to this man. LinguistAtLarge 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial write up of non-notable per guidelines individual. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and clean up the articles in what links here. --fvw * 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything to establish notability. Would need more references than just links to Youtube, etc. Chasingsol (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure Vanispamcruftisement ... I stumbled across this AFD on WP:NPP when Karmakleanse (talk · contribs) recreated it under a slightly different name (since deleted) ... ~~I agree that this will create beau coup redlinks when it's deleted because of Karmakleanse's attempts to bootstrap notability by adding links~~ ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
- Modified my comment because Some Other Editor has already been doing cleanup of bogus wikilinks by chasing the author's contributions. :-) — 72.75.108.10 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as use of Youtube videos as refs and virtually unsourcable as written. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability nor sources whatsoever! (LAmusic3 (talk) 01:46, 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 keep. John254 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Adlam

482 Ghits, no references, no notability. hence fails WP:BIO Rgds - Trident13 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article asserts notability-- "CD recordings of works for violin by Carl Nielsen received a supersonic award and his recording of the Schubert octet was voted surround sound audio DVD of the year 2005 in Germany." and "He has appeared as leader with several European orchestras, including the London Symphony Orchestra, the Deutsche Kammerphilarmonie and the Scottish BBC Symphony Orchestra". If some of these statements can be reliably sourced, (and thus meeting WP:N or WP:BIO) I'd be happy with keeping this. LinguistAtLarge 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a reference for the supersonic award, but it's given by what appears to be a small recod label, so the notability is weak. Can't find an English reference to the German award. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award was not given by Tacet Records. It was given by Pizzicato, a print classical music magazine in Luxembourg [18] which is quoted on the Tacet Records web site.

- My mistake, I thought pizzicato was a label. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only limited references I found are all on the same small record company's website, including [19]. Doesn't meet notability requirements. Chasingsol (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative~~ keep. I haven't the time to research this properly right now, but he seems to me to meet WP:BIO & have a chance of meeting WP:MUSIC. He's head of strings at Winchester College,[20] which is one of the best-known public schools in the UK. He's director of an international music festival.[21][22] There's a BBC Gloucestershire review of his appearance at a jazz festival.[23] He has at least two CD releases,[24] with a decent-length review in German of one of them.[25] Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now significantly improved from the version I reviewed yesterday. Thanks to Voceditenore & others for their work on this. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~, per Espresso Addict. Would be really good to find more sources verifying some of the info in the article, but based on what does check out, the subject seems to pass WP:MUSIC and maybe also WP:BIO. I have also added a review[26] of one of his CDs to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to regular Keep in view of Voceditenore's improvements to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded this and added more references, including one for the surround sound award. It was actually for the year 2004, but like the Grammys announced the following year. In my view he has enough to pass notability for classical musicians. Please note that with classical musicians, simple number of google hits in English are a pretty poor way to judge notability. He has also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra and with Hyperion Records. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the post of 'leader' in an orchestra is the concertmaster. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music — Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements of WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The thing to do with unreferenced articles is to look for references and see what they say & add them if appropriate, not just get a count of ghits. Adequate sources for notability in classical music.DGG (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per DGG's and my comments above, when nominating or voting on a classical musician, composer or singer article, particularly if it's not your area of expertise, it's a good idea to contact the relevant wikiprojects who can provide expert help in finding and interpreting references: WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks better after the referencing improvements by Voceditenore. He's sufficiently notable for us, as evident by his awards, recordings, and posts. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Klein zach 00:25, 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 merge to Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomas (teacher)

No reason for notability, apart from being the head teacher of a notable private school. Fails WP:BIO Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can certainly be mentioned in school article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bryanston School, into the Heads of Bryanston section. That section could have a two-sentence bio of each head. Additionally, since not all the heads of this school meet the criteria for their own article, it might also be a good idea to remove the succession boxes on the other heads of Bryanston articles. LinguistAtLarge 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We have in the past held such people notable, because of the social importance of some of these schools I think including this one, judging by the alumni) --and that references have in the past always been findable. This needs a check for print sources. Given that 4 of the 6 other heads were notable (one deleted via prod, one active head only) odds are she is also.DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. Willing to change !vote if references are provided to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 06:39, 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 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Correz

Not notable. No refs. Exactly zero Google hits for "Dana Correz." Graymornings_(talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of it seems to be WP:BALL. --fvw * 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found that establish this person's notability and verify the facts in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 16:44, 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 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D Duffy

A number of speedy and prods added to article and removed by article creator. Normally a speedy but given the number of removals have brought here for discussion. Whilst this is a procedural nomination my inclination is to delete. --VS ^talk 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 12:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion or suggestion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt as the editor seems determined that it stay. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this page he signed with a notable producer, and thus notable label, but WP:MUSIC requires him to have released two albums with such a label. I can't find any evidence of Stephen meeting any of the other criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn musical artist and creator about to get blocked for username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non notable Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. — Peter McGinley 08:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Artist is a sub-article of parent Article Dito Godwin. Purpose of the article was to avoid any confusion of affiliation with Stephen Duffy included with the Godwin article, another artist with the same name. Artist is somewhat notable and more can be added to the article as information becomes available and/or is found. However certainly respect the opinion of others that this Artist may not be notable enough at this time. TheBigPurplePen 10:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 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. John254 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blinkbox

Tagged and defended under speedy CSD A7 - notability not indicated. This is a procedural nomination so as to seek wider input. I offer no indication as to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 12:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speedied it, and think it still stand up. No assertion of notability, keeping it simply because Joost is kept is a nonsense argument. Any software that does the same thing does not automatically need an article here. --Ged UK (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability can be referenced from Google hits - stories from the Guardian, Timesonline, techcrunch etc etc.--Londonclanger (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are easily a half dozen articles in gNews to support claims to notability under criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Of course, they need to be added to the article. LinguistAtLarge 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard of these guys (and I'm not in the UK). Several mentions in notable media sources seems sufficient to me. Chasingsol (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles on Google News [27] actually discuss how they signed major deals which goes well beyond any sort of press release that would be considered unsuitable as a source. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. i've started to reference the article based on the two guardian sources. pretty sure newteevee.com doesn't count as RS. if anyone could help reference all the information or add any more of the sources mentioned in the gnews search it would be great. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the existence of multiple reliable sources that establish notability. Wiw8 (talk) 16:51, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaandni Raatain

Verbatim (or part/chunk) copy of Aaminah Haq ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 12:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom.--Oliver Twisted (Talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to be a notable program. If it's been copied from another article it can certainly be trimmed or rewritten. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, very few webhits. If it was a popular or well-known film, there should be more buzz, but I could find none.Chasingsol (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i get 40,500 hits on google with the spelling Chandi Ratein and no quotes, 620 hits hits with "Chandi Ratain" in quotes - the spelling problem is an urdu/latin transliteration problem, not a problem of notability. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: this spelling "Chaandni Ratain" in quotes gets 873 hits. Boud (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Hear:I wrote the material on the Aamina Haq page so, when I copied matter off it, I didn't think I was plagiarising. I was trying to give the dramas mentioned on the Aamina Haq page their own articles and, once that was done, provide links (in the Haq article) to those new pages. (Rk12m (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have done some minor cleanup and sourcing and tagged the article for Rescue. As sources are available and notability can be easily shown, it is now simply a matter for cleanup under "Alternatives to Deletion". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the moment i don't see much overlap between the two articles, so the original motivation for deletion seems to be missing. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is relevant here: "The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005)." The present article (1) concerns mainly women, (2) is an art topic rather than a tech topic, is (7) from a country where Christianity is a minor religion only, (8) is from a country with nuclear bombs but is not a rich country. Those of us whose demographic profiles match many of the 10 parameters known to bias the en.wikipedia ought to be especially sensitive about this bias before jumping too quickly into AfD's, IMHO. The erroneous statement above that there are few "webhits" suggests an example of this bias through someone not realising that transliteration from urdu to latin script is generally quite ambiguous, and maybe being unfamiliar with the idea that the "true" spelling of a word may exist only in the original script, not in latin script. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, tagging articles for a deletion discussion doesn't seem to be unduly biased, as most of the articles tagged for deletion have not been victims of transliteration. Also, there are 2 citations on the page, both leading to the same review in a questionably notable online publication. This doesn't seem to be bias, so much as concern for notability guidelines. Please clarify your above statement. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think there may be some misunderstanding. Firstly, i'm not suggesting that the majority of (or any) people who nominated or are involved in this discussion are individually biased. However, please have a look at the links and the text i quoted above and read them again. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should expect that the set of people in this discussion are statistically biased with respect to this article. This is not just my opinion. This is documented at Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 and discussed NPOV-style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Let's put it another way. Chances are that User:Rk12m is the only person among us who is a South Asiann woman who watches lots of films. Certainly i don't qualify by any of those three demographic/sociological criteria (i'd like to watch a lot more films, but i don't). i have no idea what other articles have been tagged for deletion by the person who tagged this one for deletion, and that would be irrelevant anyway - i'm not claiming that that person (Mr E. Sanchez) is biased.
Secondly, even though i responded to the web hits argument, great care must be taken with web hit counts as a notability criterion, e.g. "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. ... The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet." This is a case of a popular culture topic, but is internet access in Pakistan and google ranking high enough on Pakistani websites to expect much more than a few hundred hits for this movie? Again, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias if it's not clear why this is relevant.
Thirdly, as for the two citations to a (i presume) not-so-notable publication, i agree that this is a problem, but the same systemic bias applies to Pakistani cultural magazines. IMHO it would be reasonable to expect that probably 90% or so of movie reviews etc in rich Western countries are online without a subscription, and that maybe only 10% or so of movie reviews are online in Pakistan. i'm just speculating on the actual figures - but certainly the former must be bigger than the latter. If someone wants to search real estimates, please go ahead. As for what counts as a "reliable source" for movie reviews in general, that's something i can't judge very well.
Summary: there is a fundamental conflict between notability guidelines and the hope to counter systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. We cannot give up notability principles, but at the same time, we should try to counter the systemic bias, because it's a pity to have NPOV without any hope to get anywhere near neutrality on humanities subjects. There's no magic answer as to what to do, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias does have a section on generic suggestions. In this particular case, one obvious thing to do would be to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan before even thinking of deletion. In the meantime, put some tags such as {{Refimprove}} and also try explaining to User:Rk12m the dilemma we have. S/he is clearly a relatively new wikipedian. IMHO people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and in particular User:Akhwandk from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema would be people who in wikipedia jargon could be called "more expert" than "average wikipedians". However, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema shows that there's only one user listed there so far, and that user's contributions happen a few times a week, but not every day, and for a few weeks s/he has not been editing. This gets back to the point about internet access. A deletion process probably has a timescale of about a week (AFAIR, but i'm not an expert) - this doesn't give enough time for someone like Akhwandk to hear the call for help and give an opinion or practical help in finding reliable sources. Boud (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Only 10% percent of the population of Pakistan use the internet 1 and probably internet sources are few. The fact that the drama was broadcast in the Pakistan Television Corporation should be enough to establish general notability.--Jmundo (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right about internet usage. Reliable printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but were not included. If the program appeared on national TV, there surely must be evidence of this somewhere? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:03, 25 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 and redirect to Amul STAR Voice of India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Joshi

When mr. Joshi accomplishes something more of note, he ca be considered for an article. Right now however, at most he deserves a note on a Amul STAR Voice of India page Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single event, will soon be forgotten. Next. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Following all arguments above. He was one of a dozen contestants in a TV show that auditioned in part by cell phone. None of the other contestants seem outstandingly notable, either. I.e., it was a minor contest on a show that ran for two ( ! ) episodes total. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get that info? It ran for at least 20 episodes. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piano. Chasingsol (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amul STAR Voice of India so the reader is pointed to the article that has all info about this person (per our usual actions for contestants of reality tv shows). - Mgm|^(talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many links for this Bio on google search. http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USIN292IN303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Abhas+Joshi we need to expand it rather than delete. He is not only contestent of Voice Of India but also organising Sa,Re,Ga,Ma and performing in various TV shows.Aminami (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing substantially notable, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Indian i know he deserve to be at Wiki.59.95.117.7 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MUSIC. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 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 redirect to Mitcham, Victoria#Schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio park primary school

Article previously PRODed that can be safely named a stub or blank page with no substantial information on this "school". ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 10:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy as advertising. --fvw * 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pretty rubbish, but on the other hand I think all schools are inherently notable. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--This user has made little or no contributions outside this discussion. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 11:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider all schools notable, they should still meet standard guidelines like not being promotional or being verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to school district or (if there is no school district article) the article on the locality. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any of these awards can be named and shown to be significant, this would be a no-brain keep. Right now, I'm neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found this [28] reference in regards to United Nations Association of Australia Education Awards in 2004, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to back it up. All the other awards that the school has received appear to be school district "attaboy" awards. Chasingsol (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article probably could be written about the Australia Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI), but this appears to be one of 52 schools that gets five stars in that program [29] Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mitcham, Victoria#Schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitcham,_Victoria#Schools. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Merge anything useful (which wouldn't seem to be too much) to Mitcham, Victoria, per the usual procedure for these sorts of articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect or alternately delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:06, 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 WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Randolph (Tuckahoe)

Per WP:BIO, this is a pure genealogy entry. --fvw * 10:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the page's creator can say something notable about this person. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thomas Jefferson lived in his old house as a kid, but that was 20 years after he died. The house is now a tourist trap. Other than that, there's nothing notable about Randolph himself. Rklear (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geneology project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he was notable in his day. I recall that we deleted an article about George W. Bush's great-great-grandfather earlier this year. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of establishment of notability. Incidentally the article appears to have been wiped and replaced with a notice saying "delete this"... Wiw8 (talk) 16:56, 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) VX!^~~~ 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Machado

Per WP:BIO, no secondary sources (google just gives a lot of press releases and such). --fvw * 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rod Machado gets thousands of hits on google, and did voiceovers for MS Flight Simulator. Definitely notable. But the article needs a lot of work. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial and promotional entry that doesn't show notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The subject 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." (Microsoft Flight Simulator) and while the books are basically self-published, him having the highest level of aircraft pilot certification clearly makes him notable in his field. If you disregard Machado's own books, Google Books still offers enough dead-tree sources to back up an article on the guy. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like he's notable in his field, especially with the number of books he's written. Chasingsol (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, no mention of MS Flight Simulator, although I doubt a voice-over merits notability. Not a notable pilot many thousands of pilots have an ATP. No evidence that his books are notable. Reads like a promotion article for his products. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable not for his books but for the acclaimation they have received as training tools and for the wide variety of jobs he does. I was simply listing some of the books he wrote and contributed to as examples. The many speeches he has made would also show notability. There is mention of his voice being the flight instructor voice for flight simulator but that is minor. To MilborneOne. Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please improve its source per WP:BIO. Dekisugi (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will add more sources. Issue resolved.Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable enough as said by Mgm. Merry Christmas, from ComputerGuy ^talk 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable as a speaker, as an author, and as a pilot. Chuck Yeager is notable as a pilot--this guy has a license held by thousands of other pilots, nothing more. If it survives AfD, the article needs strong cleanup and much better sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books of him exist then he must be notable; still needs more references but that problem can easily be fixed --Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but do expand the article. Machado is very well known within the aviation world, not only as an author but also as a very popular speaker. He is quite influential among the flight instructor community. Cmichael (talk) 21:41, 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 keep. fvw withdrew the nomination, see my talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Island Diner

Per WP:CORP. --fvw * 09:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article because of my inexperience. Please make the desired changes to bring this into compliance since I do not understand how to do so. Thanks, Keith Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalker51 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - diner is notable because it is discussed in multiple independent, reliable sources (e.g. Salt Lake Magazine Deseret News The Providence Journal CBS News) as well as several blogs and travel websites, both under its current name and its name when it was in Rhode Island, Tommy's Diner. Somno (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should never have been nominated. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple sources. Chasingsol (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article states "After construction, it was displayed on exhibition at the 1939 World's Fair in New York.[1]". That is a clear claim to notability and it's properly referenced. WP:CORP does not come into play, this place has historic significance. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:45, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood High School (Michigan)

Non-notable school. Article was created 30 days ago and has been abandoned with out establishing notability. Adam in MO Talk 09:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that, 30 days is enough of a chance. Delete. --fvw * 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't running out of disk space. Someone might add to this article at some point. Starting an AfD is a waste of everyone's time. Why do people start these AfDs ? Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to N.I.C.E. Community Schools, which already contains more information about the school than this one-sentence article. The district apparently consists of only three schools (with this being the only high school), so the district article should be able to handle the information about all three. Deor (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to keep per expansion of article. Deor (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep High schools are notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools are NOT automatically notable, so speedy keep is not an option. Also, this is not a vote (so an admin will likely ignore your comment since you offer no rationale). TJ Spyke 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to N.I.C.E. Community Schools per Deor. I personally would have speedied the article for lack of content or context (it doesn't distinguish the school from any similar ones). Even when you consider high schools notable, the article should contain enough material to actually be an article. The community article has more information and does does a better job. As Deor notes, there should be no size issues that warrant splitting in the immediate future. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge With the article expanded, it's now larger and more informative that the material I previously cited. But my last comment from then still stands. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with all high schools sufficient sources are available to meet WP:ORG. The fact that this page was created 30 days ago(!) is irrelevant; there is no time limit on the development of articles. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deor. No sources and nothing notable about this school. I think it should be deleted, but for some reason admins don't like to delete any school articles and the recommended option is to merge it into a article on the school district it belongs too. TJ Spyke 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and troutslap nominator. WP:NODEADLINE, WP:NOT#PAPER, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Adequate sources for notability and encyclopedic content were easy to find. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHS is just a essay, meaning it's just an opinion and is not a rule or guideline. If there are sources of notability, why not add them? There are 3 sources in the article and none of them are good enough (one is the schools website, one is the schools entry on its school district site, and one is a website containing info on almost every school in the country). You say it's notably, but fail to state why. AFD's are NOT votes. TJ Spyke 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not justavote... I explained why I think the article should be kept. And are you suggesting that a) I don't know the essay that I wrote is an essay? or b) that I can not cite my essay as my reasoning for my opinion in this AFD? Would you rather I transclude it or write the whole thing here? Because I can, but I don't see a reason to do so, when any editor can click the link and read it. Did you read it?

The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Wikipedia, there are *NO* high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Wikipedia articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and *ALL* get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions.

And you should probably also read this:

“

...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do...

”

--Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written in an overtly promotional style, and doesn't make any claims to notability or cite reliable sources. Cynical (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the promotional style needs to be cleaned up, but WP:OUTCOMES #Education notes that high schools are generally kept as notable, while primary and middle schools are redirected to the school district. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OUTCOMES just says how AFDs usually turn out, it's not an argument to be used. If you think it should be kept, you need to explain why and not just say "high school articles are usually kept". TJ Spyke 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to explain anything. Cite something different if you think that high schools aren't notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is 100% correct, and rather than "opinion", reflects the consensus of hundreds of High School article AfDs. We do not delete high school articles on the basis of notability, because through an exhaustive series of attempts at doing so, over a very long period of time, EVERY high school inevitably is found to easily meet the primary retention criteria of WP:N through WP:V. There is NO DEADLINE to do this. High schools are a central institution within communities that generates news, and as such through a search of articles and archives can be shown to be notable. It is a matter of courtesy and convenience to preassume them to be notable to avoid deletion discussions that NEVER result in deletion. There is ample precedent to summarily dismiss deletion nominations for high schools. I invite you to peruse the innumerable deletion discussions that ultimately resulted in keeps... or find me even one that resulted in a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the common outcome for HS's is common for reasons well explained in the dated but still-cogent argument from Jimbo presented above. Improve, don't delete. Townlake (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and improve per WP:ATD. No need to dispose of it because it isn't yet perfect, or because its been 30 days. TO REPEAT: THERE IS NO DEADLINE. Deleting because someone has not improved an article per some arbitrary time limit does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether or how to apply notability to schools. As long as the information meets WP:V, I see no reason to delete. Mdwh (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't quite understand the logic behind the nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at the state of the article at the time it was nominated. Deor (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not expedited article cleanup. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I thought we had a consensus that all high schools were notable. That includes those with bad articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for deletion. As of 17:01, 20 December 2008, [30], it asserted being a public high school in the N.I.C.E. Community Schools school district in Michigan. The article has been greatly improved since. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being a diploma-granting, taxpayer-supported high school. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to the school system or community. Egads, how much shorter would each day's AFD be if everyone actually read WP:BEFORE before making nominations. Neier (talk) 23:33, 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 redirect to Unreal Engine. Mgm|^(talk) 15:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal technology

Unsourced neologism. All Google search results appear to be about Unreal Engine, not about this concept. Sandstein 08:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the unreal engine or otherwise delete. --fvw * 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unreal engine per WP:NEO._{Unsigned comment by User:Graymornings}
Redirect to Unreal Engine per OP Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unreal engine. Chasingsol (talk) 15:28, 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. A pub crawl? No need to let this drag on for five days. Black Kite 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 27th crawl

Non-notable event. No hits in Google News archive for "27th crawl". Was nominated for A7 speedy, but didn't meet the criteria, and given the hangon tag I guessed that a prod wouldn't work, so taking to AfD instead. David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw * 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per nom. JJL (talk) 17:43, 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 Gojulas Giga. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Kong

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 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, Sandstein 08:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids and merge whatever in there is sourced and worthwhile. --fvw * 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion about Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Notability outside of Zoids not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 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 merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Saurer

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 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, Sandstein 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same as above AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 17:08, 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 merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburian

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources, which does not include the trivial fan site used as a reference. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article; but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. DGG (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as more zoidcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this and all other similar nomination as this robotic boilerplate nomination of 5 to 10 articles a day does not allow enough time and consideration for proper discussion to take place, and just encourages robotic boilerplate responses, and does not lead to any meaningful consensus. Where is the actual discussion occurring about how to properly manage all these fictional weapon/character/toy/whatever articles? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 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, Sandstein 08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in relevant article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - same as per above AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect How many of these articles are there? Cant' we just start bundling new nominations like we did for super-robot wars? Protonk (talk) 22:12, 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 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My World, My Way (video game)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Adam in MO Talk 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say speedily. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALL.Chasingsol (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet sufficient information available to support an article 0-Mgm|^(talk) 15:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if and when reliable sources cover this sufficiently to establish notability and verify the included facts. Wiw8 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD isn't cleap, this is why we have that "unreleased videogame" tag, etc. As it stands now, this is a game being published by a notable company with coverage in dozens of sites and magazines. The article sucks and is unsourced, but it isn't speculative and unsourcable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is speculative. We are not a crystal ball in which to include articles based on rumors based on their own (i.e. primary) sources. Such future articles need secondary sources at the least. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last time I checked Joystiq, gonintendo and etc weren't primary sources. On top of that, the game is already out. It's known in Japan as "Sekai wa Atashi de Mawatteru" or something. And please don't requote wikilinks at me and use the word "we" like you're in an exclusive club, that just grinds my gears. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the article is sourceable, source it. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources from Joystiq are fine. Be bold and add them instead of being crass and uncivilly calling out other users, because that grinds my gears. MuZemike (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nah, I'm good. You be bold and do it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh noes! I cannot find any! Looks like I still stand by my reason for deletion! Can't be bold if I can't find any reliable sources! MuZemike (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the way, per above. MuZemike (talk) 07:43, 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 merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salamander (Zoids)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. The only independent source is fairly trivial when used with this topic, as the toy is just a random example used to criticize Zoids in general. It may be good to place within the main article, as the comments about the Zoid toyline are pretty relevant. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIO
Delete as nn zoidscruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 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, Sandstein 07:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the other equivalent Zoids-weapon related AFDs of 20th Dec. Wiw8 (talk) 17:34, 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 merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malder

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR. DGG (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 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, Sandstein 07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:35, 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 merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayate Liger

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 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, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:35, 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 merge to List of Zoids. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav (Zoids)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. in-universe fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 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, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gojulas Giga article.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:34, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gojulas Giga

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 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, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments on Gojulas and per ChildofMidnight. When something is not notable for a separate article, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:34, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gojulas

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Zoids and merge whatever is not there yet and can be found to be independently verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, 20 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, Sandstein 07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 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 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 90-minute television series

As per Appropriate topics for lists, lists should not be too broad. No country, decade or language category included in article title. The Appropriate topics for lists explanation (towards end of the section) points out that there must be a reason how such a list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Earlier nominated for PROD, but declined stating incompleteness of list is not reason for delete. Text including the word Incomplete in text was introduced by initial author only and not by any person proposing or seconding the PROD - it was not the reason for PROD. Also, the person agreeing on pro-d pointed out, there are many series that were 90-minutes in duration for a few episodes only and title does not say whether it is country specific. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It does not specify that it is for a specific country or broadcast market. So, it needs to be expanded to include the rest of the world. How can you say it's to broad, and too narrow at the same time? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title and hence the list is too broad. Hence the article is being nominated as it does not add any value. It is not appropriate for a list. There is no mention of narrow. There is no comment on existing entries from my part, though the person who seconded the PROD mentioned that the title is not mentioning US market (again in the sense the title leads to the list being too broad). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much too broad - not to mention useless. Graymornings_(talk) 10:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much too indiscriminate. What next, lists of two-hour films? Three-minute songs? Five foot ten men? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad. Chasingsol (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad. The criteria for inclusion or trivial and don't make for useful sorting. As per Totnesmartin, it would also set a precedent for other lists that are not useful or suitable for inclusion. (One question: are those listings with or without commercials included? ) - Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As the article points out, the 90 minute format for television series has been rare. The premise of the list as "shows that have aired 90 minute installments" is overly broad (no pun intended, but The Biggest Loser is not usually 90 minutes). However, Wagon Train and other westerns did run for 90 minutes back in the days before remotes. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 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 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clark

Contested prod. This footballer only played 20 minutes in his whole career, in a Scottish Challenge Cup match against a semi-professional club. I think he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, as elaborated upon in the football notability guidelines. Although several sources are provided, most just mention his name as part of a list and do not go into any depth on his football activities. His conviction for arson does not make him notable either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It could be construed that he meets criteria within WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN since he played at the highest level of professional football. However, despite the guidelines, I just don't think 20 minutes of competing at a professional level meets notability requirements. Chasingsol (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has made a competitive first team appearance for a professional football side. Ck12 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he played against a semi-pro side, he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't accept that 20 minutes in a cup match against a semi-pro outfit connotes notability for a footballer. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I too would have to question the importance of 20 minutes. If the individual had saved a sinking ship or ended a battle in 20 minutes, notability would be shown. However, in this case, I also question the entry as it was merely for semi-pro activities. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if he played, using common sense is allowed. Punkmorten (talk) 17:26, 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 deleted per CSD-G10 --Versa geek 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycleman

Non-notable how to ____ DVD. The article is sourced exclusively to forums. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No reliable sources, comes just this side of attacking its subject. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 06:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another how to DVD, verging on an attack page. even Bicycle Repair Man can't rescue this. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This can be considered an attack page aimed at the person who created the DVD, but at the same time it also promotes a DVD with supposed ethical issues. (I totally agree that no one should sell DVDs teaching tricks that belong to others without permission, but writing this article is not the solution). - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and does appear close to being an attack page. Chasingsol (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the above 'attack page' concerns and the fact that its 'sources' amount to Youtube and some message boards. Cynical (talk) 22:38, 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 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Party

Contested speedy, and because of the citation of some RSes in the footnotes I think it ought to be discussed here rather than just speedied Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not one, not two, but five (count em, five) cites to other Wikipedia articles. Wow. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible the article was created to link to a "Gold Party" website, which I removed. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertorial. Relevant information can be included in gold article or relevant sales/ marketing article ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much like an advertisement. Sorry...ttonyb1 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Gold Article - I had reported the article creator's username earlier (for promotion) because I spotted this article on vandalism patrol. After rereading the article I do agree it reads too much like an advertisement, however after reading the USA Today article that it cited I would support adding a section about gold parties to the gold article and have this page redirect to that section. The USA Today article suggests to me that the topic is notable and it can be addressed in a way that does not resemble an advertisement. --Aka042 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 00:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Westarctica

Supposed "micronation" with very few (849) ghits, most to blogs or to sites selling wooden coins. I haven't seen any secondary sources/news coverage. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets four pages (pp. 111–113) in ISBN 9781741047301, where it is listed as simply Westarctica. Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Uncle G. If the micronation is mentioned in a book it is not merely made up as the nominator appears to imply. Likely covered in other books about micronations as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sources establishing notability. LinguistAtLarge 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's 6 sources at best, not really significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sólyomszem (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't rename - Lonely Planet has a section on Westarctica, all micronation articles are known by their full names. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename - Listed in books, as well as news sources... per WP Micronation should be titled as it's long, proper name... it needs some work, and better references, but does not deserve to be deleted... - Adolphus (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename --Yopie 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason behind rationale is provided. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in Lonely Planet, minted coins --Yopie 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename This is getting monotonous, isn't it? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the news sources cited were covering this "micronation" as a real geopolitical entity, but as more of a humorous "water cooler story" or silly factoid. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial (non-tongue in cheek) coverage in independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) I must be missing something, but where are the sources that establish this is a micronation? Can someone point me in the right direction? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is the Micronations entry... also added to the article... - Adolphus (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that there is a "claiming" of unclaimed land in antarctica by some Americans and that no one lives in Westarctica. It also says the area is known as Marie Byrd Land. The supposed Micronation which seems a front to sell coins, was founded in 2001 and is a "monarchy" with a website? I feel like people are pulling my leg. What is notable about this non-nation except perhaps as a ruse, but since it hasn't been covered substantially I don't think an article is warranted even for that. Can I put a Hoax template on the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The guy appointed himself "Grand Duke, and designed a flag. Should this be merged with a/the Byrd Station (1957-1972) article about the scientific research and drilling station and the Byrd Surface Camp opened by the US Antarctic program? Is it going to be made clear this is a hoax? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't understand, what is "micronation", please read articles about it. --Yopie 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment OK, I'm satisfied that the level of notability required for micronations has been established. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest keep closure per nominator withdrawal above. However I think it may be wise to offer some explanation within this article as to what a "micronation" actually is, to avoid confusion in readers who aren't familiar with the fact that this term means more than just "small country". Wiw8 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article and the introduction in particular don't make clear what "Westarctica" is. It's an unrecognized land claim from 2001 by some American guy. It's used to sell coins. The article is very misleading and it doesn't do a good job describing "Westarctica". I'm going to try to fix it up a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Micronations only exist as nations in the minds of their claimants. They are a variety of vanity, like vanity books and there have even been vanity patents. With a very few exceptions they are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that most are non-notable (you see several new ones pop up each week if you have List of micronations on your watch list). But, I believe if they have been written about in a book, and/or several times in notable newspapers, they pass WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS concerns just like any other entity... - Adolphus (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I'm satisfied that Westarctica may have enough coverage to be included, but it needs to be made clear right up front in the intro of these articles what the subjects are and are not. The term micronation (tiny nation) is VERY misleading, even if it is established. So making clear that these are not officially recognized and are simply land claims aspiring to nation status is VERY important, especially when the claims are used to engage in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 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 Snowball/Speedy Delete clearly a CSD candidate, only reason it was taken to Afd was because of objection by creator but community clearly wants speedy deletion.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Nerds

It's essentially a blog.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not even attempt to be an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a signed personal manifesto, written in the first person and exhorting the reader to a single point of view, in violation of our basic Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. There's nothing whatsoever salveageble here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete First-person manifesto, violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Unencyclopedic for the reasons stated above - it's a persuasive essay. HeureusementIci (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — while I sympathize with the author's conviction to stomp out intellectual discrimination (I face a lot of adversity in regards of my intellectual "qualifications," as well.), the page is nonetheless a soapboxery style essay, not even close to being remotely encyclopedic. Also this is not your own webhost, and I would even borderline go for G11 for trying to promote a blog/YouTube channel. MuZemike (talk) 04:48, 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. G3, vandalism blatant misinformation. Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Santiago

Not notable (fails WP:BIO). No sources. IMDb does not list him in cast of ANY of the films in filmography. In fact, he has no entry whatsoever at IMDb. Possible hoax, but more likely the article is self-promotional. Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation, given that none of these roles is listed on IMDb and even someone who's just been in commercials usually turns up more sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is a hoax, but the user's contributions warrant more scrutiny, which afd offers. User's other article Jacob Dionisio is also up for deletion, and I see numerous notices on the user's talk page. --Aude (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant misinformation. The supposed award "Primetime Emmy Award for Best Child Actor" doesn't appear to exist, especially not in 1997. And the Emmy website doesn't have him listed. And I'm also absolutely positive this person did not have a named part in the Harry Potter film. I know all the named characters and the one listed here does not exist (I checked with the film's end credits). = Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Unlimited

Unable to find reference to this in news media or general Google search. Non-notable. Would have done speedy but want to avoid re-creation. Bongo matic 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the reason for the claim to notability (the cargo ship incident) isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article then I fail to see why one of the participants in the incident should be considered notable Cynical (talk) 22:32, 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 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Believed

Non-charting single, no sources outside youtube. Not a good redirect choice as a.) it seems a fairly common title, b.) it seems prone to being undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second reason to not redirect is not sound. Redirects can be protected if they're the target of repeated reversal. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching on Google or Google news only yields unrelated hits, or hits to lyrics, videos, unreliable blogs and forums. There's no reliable sources and a redirect would likely interfere with similarly named material. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Robbie

Non notable book series. IP (possibly author) removed prod with no explanation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the editor that placed the prod. After the user contested the prod, I decided to search for sources and all I found was the author's site. Schuym1 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, the author dosen't like the fact that his article will go bye bye. He keeps removing the templates.Someone should block him for now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I said that I would report him to AIV, he stopped removing the tag. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this fails G7 and makes no effort to claim the book's notability. This appears to be a vanity advertisement page for a manifestly non-notable product. Direct the author to the relevant policies, kill the article, and save us all the time and energy. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a G7, G7 is "author requeests deletion". Do you mean A7 perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7 and G11. Self-promotional, no notable third-party mentions. Graymornings_(talk) 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not apply to books and I don't think G11 is so serious it cannot be solved with editing. I'd rather see this AFD run its course. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I somehow mistakenly thought the article was about the author, not the books. But I still think it's G11. If I could find any outside sources, I wouldn't, but it's irreparably an ad. Graymornings_(talk) 02:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be an advertisement. Additionally, recently added links are of random information that do not establish the books notability. Chasingsol (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lack of reliable secondary sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 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. John254 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Says

The guideline on notability of films gives an admittedly nonexhaustive list of reasons for inclusion:

The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. No evidence of such.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: None of the criteria in this grouping is applicable as five years have not elapsed since the film's initial release.
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. No evidence of such.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence of such.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence of such.

The references given do not amount to "significant coverage", and the external links are not "independent of the subject." Bongo matic 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:EL the external links need NOT be independent of the subject... the sources must so be... and they are. The nom's statement should not be taken as a refutation of notability because of the use of external links, as they are not what establishes notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those criteria are in addition to the general notability guideline, and coverage from 4 film festivals satisfies that. Also, I remember a criterion that mentioned a film being notable when it marked an important point in a contributing person's career. Since this is Mike Reid's last film, I'd say that would qualify. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on being in minor festivals qualifying for GNG. The other point you're referring to is that the "film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," but that it should be have its own article "only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." If Mike Reid is notable, then it seems unliklely that there would be too much about this film to include in an article on him. Bongo matic 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Mgm. Per WP:GNG the extensive coverage shows notability. Further, as this is Mike Reid's last film, it further qualifies as being a final landmark in a notable contributing person's career. The nom will certainly disagree, but that's why we are here. Further, I have just done a bit of cleanup of the article per film MOS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:54, 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 G3 as vandalism/nonsense. Wow, I forgot to sign, that's rare. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HidenSeek Nursery

Nursery's aren't notable, I think. Could be G3 except seems not to be to blatant. WP:HOAX Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean G3. G3 anyway, "vagina nursery" seems like something that wouldn't have been around 5 years ago much less 100+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) 2008-12-20 02:56:31
The article cites no sources. Searching, I can find no sources (although nurseries named "Hide N Seek" exist). The topic is barely discernable from the text, which is almost incoherent. This is on the borderline of speedy deletion territory, as a combination of vandalism (see the reverted edits, which don't inspire confidence in the non-reverted ones) and simply no context. The article gives no clue as to what sort of nursery this even (purportedly) is. Uncle G (talk) 05:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self Help Africa

This is no doubt a worthy charitable organization. However, to date there is no reason to believe that it has generated any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unless notability can be established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, it has generated media coverage: [31]. A luta continua! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Just added six news refs to the article. An active & visible Irish charity Aymatth2 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned above. Thanks to Aymatth2 for finding them and adding them to the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the usual do WikiDoGooders have stuck again! :) I thought I heard bells. Keep ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 25 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 deleted. Nonsense articles like this don't need to come to AFD. Please tag them for speedy deletion. --Aude (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr peeper

Seems to be a neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no context. Tagged as such. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:06, 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 close as redirected. This didn't need an afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roben Talow (Bazi)

Roben Talow (Bazi) has been replaced with Roben Talow which is the same athlete Honana (talk) 01:25, 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. Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade

non-notable volunteer fire brigade. Contested PROD Mattinbgn\^talk 20:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced, no apparent notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage found through Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:29, 17 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, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP notability guidelines. Matt (Talk) 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for the most unusual cirsumstances, a volunteer fire department with one station and two apparatus is not going to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 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 deleted - G3 Vandalism by Masamage (talk · contribs) - (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beenus

Probably a hoax. I have been unable to find verification of the claim that Beenus is either a hair dye or type of lingerie. Instead Urban dictionary defines Beenus as a 'black penis' ([32]).

~~Additionally the article claims that "the meaning of beenus comes from the Greek word Beenalosto", however the Latin dictionary University of Notre Dame lists no such word as "Beenalosto".~~ Icewedge (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One is unlikely to find Greek words in a Latin dictionary, note. But my well-thumbed Greek–English lexicon doesn't contain any such word (even when allowing for the idea that this might not be the nominative case). I have found no sources on anything named "beenus". This is a hoax article, filled with random fiction. Uncle G (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Stricken. Icewedge (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Girl

Unnotable manga series that fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-MANGA. Single short direct to DVD adaptation is not a "significant adaptation." Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when were OVA adaptations not counted towards notability? The series, short as it is, must have had some level of popularity at very least, or an OVA would not have even been considered. They aren't the cheapest thing to produce. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single episode OVA. OVAs are direct to video releases. Most full length films released direct to video are not generally notable nor even an indication of popularity. Without significant coverage in reliables sources, this appears to just be a minor manga series with an minor OVA adaptation. There aren't even sources to confirm the OVA exists beyond the mention on ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct to video releases in Japan have historically had a different status than in the West -- an OVA adaptation had, at the time of this one, as much cache as a theatrical movie, and had animation quality that compared to same (and better than television shows). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies when the OVA is notable, per criterion 3 of WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [33] might be useful here (Press release?). I also suspect a search in Japanese would turn up a number of reviews. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I'm not seeing anything in that article about A-Girl at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, it's not about A-Girl, but the live-action movie adaptation of a different series by the same author. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I think I grabbed the wrong link. SorryHobit (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you retrace the one you thought you had? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't see a bit of notability in the article itself. While I have no idea about the subject, the article as it stands seems rather trivial.Mrathel (talk) 15:40, 15 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, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Evidence of notability based on authorship and likelyhood of Japanese sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the series is two volumes with only being serialized for six months, so it had to have used some serious space in the monthly magazine in which it ran. As others have noted, OVAs are generally not cheap to produce, and the fact that a six-month series spawned an OVA as well as an accompanying soundtrack release shows that some serious money was put into this series. While single OVAs may not normally be notable on their own, taken with the manga as a whole, I think this one meets the criteria. I will look in the magazines I have from around that time period to see about coverage in articles (1984 and 1993). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. It would help if Nihonjoe were to find just one direct reference in a magazine, as one strongly supports the notion that there's more. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nihonjoe's comment. Extremepro (talk) 22:50, 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 keep. Nominated in good faith but kept per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Hair

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources to confirm notability. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP notability guidelines. Matt (Talk) 09:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A search showed lots of mentions and coverage. What am I missing? should be retitled Burnt Hair Records. Maybe try searching that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just searched that and all I found was a bunch of trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The MTV link that you added is trivial. Schuym1 (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Also, what I searched for was Burnt Hair and Burnt Hair record company which brought up a bunch of trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are noted in a Detroit Newspaper and on MTV's website for releasing albums for bands. Several of the bands they released albums for have articles on Wikipedia (some more notable bands than others I'll grant you). I think it's clear the the label is notable for their work with these bands and as part of their recording history. I think it's a fine stub article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article with much better sourcing and references. Some of it is just for verifiability, but there are also some reliable sources to establish notability. There is ample evidence of notability for the label. They recorded many bands and were part of a notable music scene. If I need to do more please let me know. But I'm hoping to move on... ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are "unquestionably the label most responsible for cultivating Detroit's sound" of the mid to late 1990s[34] (this info and new ref just added). Also multiple mentions cumulatively pass the bar. Ty 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 'Reliable sources'? Someone's not much of a music fan. Burnt Hair was responsible for incubating the careers of a number of very important bands, and I think the person who nominated this for deletion was doing so in bad faith. Keep keep keep. Tzaquiel (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pump up the volume Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-Styles

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, all that and a bag of chips. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D-Styles has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works, some examples of which can be found here, here and here, so passes WP:MUSIC#1. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles look identical and the third isn't very substantial in its coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no substantial 3rd party coverage, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:05, 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 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Dunsdon

Non notable local TV journalist and presenter. No independent reliable sources offered to show how the subject meets WP:BIO and none available on searching Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CREATIVE. No coverage bar those from current or previous employers. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:47, 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) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Seems to have some notability as television reporter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Perhaps not enough notability yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party sources, non-notable WP:BIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:09, 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) ~ mazca ^t|c 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stringfellow

Unreferenced, does not seem to pass WP's notability guidelines, v. little external coverage Richard Hock (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources to support a claim to notability. LinguistAtLarge 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources found by JulesH. LinguistAtLarge 05:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for cleanup. Review of one of his books here. Another one here. Brief mention of his prop-making work here. Featured in local radio show here. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as a poet. Good grief we keep articles much less notable on third string footballers who have only played in a few games in their careers. Lets not dumb down wikipedia. Manitobamountie (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:32, 16 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) 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE criteria with JulesH's sources. Matt (Talk) 09:12, 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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Scott

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – I was able to find this [35] imdb. Therefore, we know that not everything is made up in the article. If someone could reference only half the claims made in the piece, would gladly support as a Keep. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I removed the more blatant WP:BLP violations like info about what she's doing and info about her children. I suggest someone who knows how to do a blanking template, do it. It reads like a tabloid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:50, 16 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) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Only source is IMDB and if there are no others to be found, she is clearly not a notable person. Chamal ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can the article be sourced? Where it the information from? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:02, 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 Delelte. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript editor

Article's topic is not notable. The actual topic should be covered by Integrated development environment, because most of the listed programs can handle more than just JavaScript. In addition, there are no articles on C editor or Java editor or PHP editor (simply a redirect to a list page). Given the placement of the external links in the article, it is possible this article is used by companies to increase their marketing profile or SEO rating. Voidvector (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make this into a disambiguation page. "JavaScript editor" could mean either an IDE or text editor for writing Javascript, or a Javascript-based WYSIWYG editor embedded in web apps. In my opinion, JavaScript editor should be a disambiguation page pointing to Text editor, Integrated development environment and WYSIWYG editor. LinguistAtLarge
Turn into a list and move to List of Javascript editors (like the PHP example mentioned above), keeping this title as a redirect (or a disambiguation, as LinguistAtLarge suggested). --Waldir ^talk 13:57, 17 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) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim it down to a list of programs. No need to discuss what javascript is, or what an ide is. There are separate articles for that. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references = not notable. Some of the intro content could perhaps be moved to Source code editor, but otherwise this is just a list of commercial software products with links to vendor pages. The entry on JavaScript could make the obvious point that people use editors to create JavaScript programs, but should surely not provide a vendor catalog. The analogy is that Chinese Cuisine is a legitimate subject, but Chinese Restaurants in Chicago is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir ^talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I am not against articles about commercial products if they are notable. Microsoft Windows, Paris Hilton etc. reasonably have articles - millions of people are affected by or have opinions on these products. They are clearly notable. But I am against articles about less notable (to the general public) subjects that are structured in a way that will attract advertisers, with endless edit wars. Both JavaScript and Source code editor are entirely reasonable articles, just like Chinese Cuisine and Restaurant, but I am uneasy about the intersection, naming specific examples. If we dropped all mention of specific vendors, would there be enough left about JavaScript editors (as opposed to editors for all the other languages) to make a worthwhile article? I doubt it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, maybe I should vote keep and add an entry for the Aymatth2 JavaScript editor. Amazing value at $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Many unique features. Be the envy of your neighbors. Everyone is buying it - but stocks are limited. Buy now and get a free fortune cookie with each order! I am sure I could find a vendor who really has a product and would be willing to give me a commission on the sales... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move. The article if kept must be technical: how is built a JavaScript Editor. Why it is special. Would have to me moved into wikibooks in my mind. Macaldo (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, content is borderline G11, delete as per WP:V (none). Suggest disambiguation redirect to Text editor - DustyRain (talk) 16:17, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Isom

Delete. Non-notable baseball player and manager. Marked as unreferenced since June. Does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:11, 16 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) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles on minor league players or managers need reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails notability as stated. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. AcroX 02:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn athlete. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Nothing else to say really. Chamal ^talk 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Chasingsol (talk) 18:33, 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 Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command Wolf

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable as independent article subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect permy comment on Bigasaur. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of the articles of Zoids on Wikipedia, this could be one of the more deserving of a keep. The Command Wolf is one of the most reproduced models in the entire Zoids range, with twelve distinct releases across the twenty-five 'lines', and four limited edition releases. The mecha also plays a major role in four of the five anime series', appearing in most episodes as the mecha of a major supporting character (Irvine in Chaotic Century and the first half of Guardian Force, Brad in the first half of Zero, Helmut in Fuzors), and appears throughout all five series' as minor characters.

Having said that, I don't care either way about the fate of this and other Zoids articles, as I contributed to them when I was young and stupid towards the Ways of the Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Zoids. (And update List of Zoids.) Merging is a completely acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion, and saying we can't agree on a merge here would be to impose excess bureaucracy, which Wikipedia is not. To quote our anti-bureaucracy policy (albeit with a touch of irony), it's obvious that we can resolve this AFD "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures". 64.231.195.170 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because merging is an acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion does not mean that is acceptable to nominate something for AFD that should be merged. AFD is for things that need to be deleted, not for things that can reasonably be merged or redirected to more appropriate articles. WP:BEFORE says to consider these things before nominating, not after. Individually nominating dozens of similar articles with the same boilerplate rationale is excess bureaucracy, and it's obvious that most of the AFD's that are brought by the nominator could be resolved through the normal procedures outlined at WP:MERGE, instead of wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators for something that could be resolved "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures" without needing an administrator to hit the delete button. It is far easier to apply a {{mergeto}} tag to an article than to nominate for deletion, the nominator could have added a merge tag to each of these Zoids articles and pointed them to a single discussion on Talk:List of Zoids, for example, to determine which of these articles should be merged and which (if any) should be kept as separate articles. It is likely that no one would have objected to a reasonable merge of these articles. It seems clear for the dozens of prior "discussions" (what little discussion there is) that the consensus for the majority of these articles is to merge and/or redirect, and I can't for the life of me figure out any reason other than obsessive-compulsiveness to continue to bring these to AFD after such consensus has already repeatedly been determined. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect, as usual, and slap the nominator with a school of trouts until he figures out that he can use merge tags, talk-page discussion, and bold, revert, discuss (with emphasis on the "discuss" part after a "revert" happens) to accomplish his goals without wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 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 merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigasaur

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Zoids and merge a reduced amount of material. No independent notability, doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered at all, just not in a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Include in parent article. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 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 as I don't see why this needs to stay open any longer. Partly WP:SNOW, partly withdraw nomination so it works either way. (NAC)Tavix (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nagle

Unnotable wreck diver. I couldn't find any sources on him and the article fails to mention exactly why he is notable. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: "... it was his pioneering approach to wrecks that set him apart from other divers of his era. In 1985 Bill Nagle lead the team of divers who recovered the bell of the Andrea Doria, which had previously been thought lost and unrecoverable.Bill Nagle was also one of the first people in the Northeastern United States to commence dive chartering as a full time business with the custom dive vessel, the Seeker." These seem to be an assertion of notability to me, admittedly sourced offline. I leave it to others to decide if this makes him notable among wreck divers. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the article, and I don't believe in voting on one's own articles, but I would just point out I only created it because of a number of redlinks in other articles (click on "links here" to see). Nagle's life and death were fairly well chronicled in the best selling book, Shadow Divers (which is what I used as my primary (and only) source), although the book is more principally about the mystery U-boat. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read through the Google results. Of course he's notable. Why on earth was this article nominated? Deletionist timewasters. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil and refrain from calling people childish -ist words. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no attempt to first discuss the issue on the article's talk page or on the creator's talk page, so the nomination was deletionist. Prior discussion could avoid unnecessary AfDs. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he is notable enough. He has made some important discoveries. Looks to me like a pretty special person in his field of profession. As for failing WP:BIO, recovering the bell of the Andrea Doria seems to be a very notable achievement particularly since it was thought to be unrecoverable (which I think makes him suitable for inclusion per criteria "...has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Chamal ^talk 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact the nominator failed to find sources is irrelevant, because the article already has multiple sources. Also, Chamal's assertion that did something notable in his field of expertise is something I would totally agree with. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And cleanup/ rewrite. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sofixit !! :D --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep. Notability is clear. DS (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 666 ghits for '+"Bill Nagle" +dive' - no prestigious sources, but in the field of wreck-diving, he is undoubtedly notable. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has multiple reliable sources, fail to see a reason for deletion. Wiw8 (talk) 17:57, 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 redirect to CollegeHumor. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Amir

no reliable sources are available to attest to the notability of jake and amir. i posted on the talk page 2 weeks ago asking if anyone could provide reliable sources, and none were added. the only response was an affirmation that this article should be AfD'd. the article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for jake and amir, and a magnet for lame vandalism Theserialcomma (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to http://www.JakeandAmir.com, http://www.facebook.com/jakeandamir, and http://www.bustedtees.com/jakeandamir for required "notability" of Jake and Amir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.203.11 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of those meet reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly for lack of notability via reliable sources as well as this is not your own webhost, as noted on their website, which says "Learn more on Wikipedia." MuZemike (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the article's section titled Media coverage. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and they seem to be using the Wikipedia article for promotion, as indicated by the official web site. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it a web host to keep material like this. Chamal ^talk 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only third-party sources provided (the Wired article and the scans of Cosmopolitan and US Weekly) only give a few lines on the topic, all basic information. This hardly establishes notability. It would be a different story if one of those sources featured a detailed interview. As it is, though, it's not enough. Also agree with MuZemike and Chamal_N on the treatment of Wikipedia as a webhost. There's no reason why they can't publish "more information" on their own site. [Phlygh t] 13:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Phlyght. The media coverage is by Wikipedia standards trivial. There's no indepth information. An interview or a listing that shows an award from any of these publications would be another story. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be substantial coverage and recognition and involvement in web awards and web comedy community. Good news search [36] ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main CollegeHumor article. Graymornings_(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Videos avg near 100k views each, Show started ind. of college humor, the videos themselves can be used as reference, media coverage, web awards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.168.154 (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the videos themselves don't qualify as reliable references for their WP:N or WP:Verifiability
Keep Jake and Amir have been interviewed multiple times on various programs that cover pop culture, including, most notably, Yahoo's "The 9" by Maria Sansone, who herself is a public figure. Also of note is the fact that CollegeHumor was recently given a timeslot on MTV.
Keep JakeandAmir are a pair of comedians. This wiki entry assists in detailing the history of their career, and their development from the beginning. It also allows people to understand the recurring themes in the videos, without having to watch all of the videos to find the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.118.86 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook example of what "trivial" coverage means. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and smerge to CollegeHumor seems like a reasonable compromise. They're really notable on their own but are probably worth a mention. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:03, 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.