mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 21 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_21

< November 20 November 22 >

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 wrong venue - this is not in article space. Try MfD, or alternatively stop being silly. This nomination of a page that is harmless and useless at worse is simply going to stoke needless drama by poking a stick in a bear.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine de Burgh

[edit]

spoof page by sockpuppet. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Middle East Theatre of World War II. kurykh 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East campaign

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Middle East campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am proposing that this article be deleted as the information contained within, is already covered in detail within other summery articles. In this case both the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II articles summarise the events that happened in the Middle East geographical area during the World War Two period.

When one consults the Oxford dictionary it states that a military campaign is a “series of military operations intended to achieve an objective in a particular area” (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/campaign?view=uk); dictionary.com states something along the same lines: that a campaign is “military operations for a specific objective.”(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/campaign)

Thus as a descriptive name it does fit. This “campaign” was a series of mini-wars, a few bombing raids, and small campaigns launched on one front of a theatre of war; not a separate individual military campaign.

Doing Google searches on the term one finds nothing, when excluding wiki or other websites copying information off the wiki, on this subject so I do not believe it necessary compiles with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

To sum up I believe that this is not a common or correct name for the events that took place, I believe the summaries have sufficiently been dealt with elsewhere so that this article is no longer needed and from a historical/military point of view the events that took place were not one single military campaign and each had there own objectives and were loosely related.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this was a series of operations intended to gain control of the middle east; thus it was a campaign. Your main argument for deletion appears to be that this was no a campaign, but it is.--Patton123 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Middle East was mostly already in Allied or friendly hands, there was no campaign to gain control of it. The Anglo-Iraqi war was imitated because of a coup in Iraq and a subsequent army rebellion. The rebellion was put down and there was essentially a return to the status quo. Syria was attacked due to multiple reasons, and one will note the Allies called the fighting in Syria – the Syrian campaign - while Iran was attacked to keep a supply line to the USSR secure.
These three campaigns/mini wars were rather loosely related and there were no single Allied or Axis overarching campaign to secure the entire Middle East region, as you have put it.
On top of that the police actions in Palestine, which had also been going on pre war, plus the Italian bombing raids, have near enough nothing to do with the above; the Italians initially did not launch any campaign to capture the Middle East. Note: Unsigned Comment
In the many sources I have read on the fighting in this neck of the world I have yet to see one that calls it one single campaign: some examples, the British Official History considers them separate campaigns as does for example the Essex Regiments history.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is duplicated within the two articles linked to in the initial nomination bar the mentioning of the Italians bombing Palestine, which can easily be added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL why do you guys keep mentioning notability? The nominator didn't say this was about notability, it's because he doesn't think the name is appropriate and it's content is duplicated information. If you oppose that, then that's fine, but notability isn't the issue here. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enigma, I don't think you should put "merge & redirect" in bold down here, it looks like an extra !vote, would you consider un-bolding it please? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note again, there are two articles that summerise the events that took place in the middle east along with the campaign articles themselves.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 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. kurykh 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Masalar

[edit]
Marius Masalar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AfD tag added to article on 12th December by Galassi (talk · contribs). Completing nomination process, no opinion on deletion of article. See talk page of article for further comment. roleplayer 16:06, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 00:11, 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. I am persuaded by the arguments regarding WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. I note that the subject is a relatively unknown person and that the original author, who is presumably the subject, has blanked the page of the article, thereby signifying a wish for it to be deleted, and I take that into account also per the deletion guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lampathakis

[edit]
Paul Lampathakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Main issue is WP:BLP1E. WP:COI and lack of referencing are concerns also. –Moondyne 07:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —–Moondyne 07:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "In 2008, Lampathakis won the political reporting category of the Western Australian Media Awards" If the whole jail threat is given undue weight that can be solved by editing. COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. I don't see that winning a local media award makes him notable, that'd be more something I'd see on his CV. I repeat, BLP1e: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.", and "Cover the event, not the person." This article is a blatant attempt at self-promotion after the subject found himself the target of a police raid. In fact, from what I recall of the event the raid was more focussed on the premises of the newspaper rather that the journalist—as far as I know his home wasn't even raided. The raid was notable, and is mentioned and referenced here –Moondyne 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that Lampathakis was named by the police in the raid as a person of specific interest following publication of an article by him, but other areas of the paper's offices were also searched, as well as other staff leaving the building. Also, he was described in the ABC article as "the editor and senior journalist".[1] This was reported incorrectly — Sam Wier is the editor and Lampathakis is more usually described as "a journalist". –Moondyne 05:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Against WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The entire coverage of the person, including the said award (which itself has no news coverage [2]) is purely local and is covered by no more than 3 or 4 major sources, all Australian. The person also fails notability as a journalist. LeaveSleaves talk 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search should have been on WA Media Awards, the sources are not "purely local", and major sources (even Australian ones!) can establish notability. Doing his 'job' does not establish notability, but enough references in similar sources may do so; making news doesn't, but making the news may do. I made a minor change to the article. 10:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that then go in a section under The Sunday Times, as that's where most would be likely to look? On looking at The Sunday Times I see a section entitled "Recent events" which seems to be the place for this. Orderinchaos 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event is notable, and the nominator has linked where that is noted: Sunday Times#recent events. Mention of the notability of Lampathakis, even to the one event, is not established; I attempted to find a reliable source that would, but did not succeed.
The ABC article only mentions that he wrote the story, with the correct[ed] description 'journalist', and not that this was exceptional. There have been no improvements to the article since my edit last year, and no source presented there has established the article's accordance with WP:BLP1E. - cygnis insignis 08:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable (as opposed to the event), BLP1E and not news, per nominator. To the person above citing Google news hits for the name, the vast majority of those 84 hits are articles by this reporter, not about him. All working journalists will have a ton of Google news hits for their name, it doesn't establish notability in itself. Sarah 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, BLP1E etc. He was only notable for the one event, he wasn't a lead writer or anything and very little is known about him besides where he works and this incident. Journalists creating articles on themselves is a bit of a worrying phenomenon, too... Orderinchaos 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove about half of the article which was straight quotes from the Australian news article. It should be noted that The Sunday Times (aka PerthNow) reporting on one of its own journalists cannot be considered to be an independent source, whilst both The Australian and The Sunday Times are News Ltd papers which share resources. Orderinchaos 08:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Baker

[edit]
Helen Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines, unreferenced, cannot find any references online apart from lulu.com, Helen Baker's publisher Richard Hock (talk) 12:21, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:24, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Lamond

[edit]
Walker Lamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This subject does not warrant an article in Wikipedia. The sources are his own website (!) and IMDb, which oftentimes lists just about anyone/thing, and where much of the information is suspect or patently false. Note that the subject himself has edited his own page much of the time and the "article" (read: mini-paragraph) portrays him as a legend in the business, which is just absurd. How being an assistant, I mean "protege" (likely his own words), to an established filmmaker means he deserves an article in an encyclopedia is beyond me and the vast majority of others - this is merely blatant self-promotion, a detriment to our culture. Houndsteeth (talk) 17:44, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:22, 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 or merge. Since the result cannot in any way conceived as "delete," talk page discussion on the issue of merging is encouraged. kurykh 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-frame

[edit]
E-frame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Exosquad 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) 22:47, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge intact The content has already been merged into this combination article, which is the right level of detail, and the way to deal with topics like this. It could possibly be merged, but if so it should be merged intact, as it seems everything here is verifiable from the primary sources, and relevant to the series--and those are the only requirements for content of an article. I can see disagreements about where we should separate articles--this is not a matter than can be rigidly prescribed; but I can so no reason why we should remove sourceable content--all that's needed is to specifically state where in the series the details come from. DGG (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TTN basically summed it up. Themfromspace (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [3], i.e. part of indiscriminate mass nomination. No legitimate reason presented as to why we would not at worst merge and redirect. The toy seems to have been part of a lawsuit (see [4] and [5]. Clearly not a hoax, per Amazon.com, so something that is verifiable and has some notoriety needs to be kept in some capacity. No reason presented for redlinking, although a case could be made for a merge or redirect which should be discussed in an appropriate venue. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that TTN has been mass-nominating articles for deletion, but the sad truth is that most of these articles deserve to go: they are crufty, unsourced, and hurt Wikipedia's credibility as a real encyclopedia. Besides, his nomination was spot-on. You said that this content is verifiable, but beyond that it has to be notable, per Wikipedia's policies, to be included. This means that (as TTN said) the subject of the article has to have had significant coverage by independant, reliable sources. The subject of this article hasn't, and until it has it fails the notability guidelines and shouldn't be in the encylcopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion and these indiscriminate and inaccurate mass nominations actually turn away editors and readers. These articles can be sourced as I was able to find out relatively quickly and the fact that these toys are sold by major retailers, appear not simply as toys, but also in an animated series and even in a video game, and have been the subject of a law suit covered in at least one published book, i.e. a reliable secondary source as well as in multiple Google News hits indicates that it meets our notability standards and should be included in the paperless encyclopedia. A case can be made for merging and redirecting this content, which is welcome on the article's talk page, but there really is no reason for redlinking in this case. See for example page 1339 of West's federal supplement. [First Series.] Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSCRUFT comes from an essay. While it isn't a strong argument in itself, tacked onto an article suffering from severe notability issues it seals the deal for deletion. Notability isn't about fame, importance, or popularity. It is about in-depth discussion of the subject matter in reliable sources. Trivial mentions in varying genres do not make an article pass WP:N. Fictional objects must pass the notability test in the real world and this subject doesn't come close. Themfromspace (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not really in question here as pertains to our policies and guidelines. You can hold these toys in the real world, play video games that include them and watch televsion shows that depict them. These realities coupled with the fact that they are mentioned in a real world court case covered in multiple reliable secondary sources makes them pass our notability tests with flying colors, which is why the nomination is horribly inaccurate. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don't understand the notability guidelines.? You may be confusing the concept of notability with that of verifiability. If you reread WP:N you'll see it say that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and the guidelines go on to define exactly what "significant coverage", "reliable", "sources", "independant of the subject", and "presumed" all mean. You see, just because something exists and can be verified, doesn't mean it gets a free ride on the notability requirement. Themfromspace (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this topic has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, it is notable as has been pointed out. Moreover, The article is consistent with Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, and consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Thus, the article meets both our verifiability and reliability guidelines. If you would like to compromise and argue for a merge and redirect, then I would happily meet that middle ground, but clearly there is no compelling need to redlink this article at this time as it unequivocally has potential to either be developed as a stand alone or at least as part of another article. Plus, because these aspects of a fictional franchise have appearances in various media (video game, toys, and television show), the article also serves a navigational function to other articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to argue for a merge of the Origins section, if it contained a few citations. Themfromspace (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can find (note: I might resume searching tomorrow as I'm kind of feeling a bit out of it now and somewhat need to lie down or eat something). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in the Ohio Conference, United Church of Christ

[edit]
Churches in the Ohio Conference, United Church of Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems like a WP:NOTDIR violation. Just one of these churches has an article, the rest being non-notable, so there isn't a particularly sound rationale for having this as a list. Biruitorul Talk 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and rename though not all churches are notable, they are the sort of local institutions that if w were to significantly expand the criteria, would probably be the next ones to include--they are all in a sense at least partially notable. so I think a list is a good idea, in exactly the same way as we have lists of the elementary schools in the article for a school district or a country. We could probably avoid the problem, by renaming it as Ohio Conference, United Churches of Christ, which is notable, and where the church listing would be part of the content. (the rest would be the history of the denominational conference). DGG (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per well reasoned views of DGG. This is already more than a list and has plenty of scope for expansion. Smile a While (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shake Rattle & Roll X

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shake Rattle & Roll X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased film. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstream

[edit]
Stillstream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources; therefore, notability not established. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And yet a handful of other stations, such as SomaFM who is a direct analogue to StillStream, have established Wikipedia articles and cite no sources at all. Apparently their notability is above question. My problem here is not your requirements but your inconsistent application of them. I will withdraw the article myself, but at this point I consider Wikipedia's neutrality to be seriously lacking. Darrell.burgan (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant spamming (G11) for a non-notable magazine (A7). Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty magazine

[edit]
Nifty magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to have been created by a representative of the magazine, and does not make it clear whether the magazine meets the notability criteria. A search of google news showed zero hits for this title. Article recreated after the speedy-deletion of a version which was blatant advertising. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amritnath Ashram

[edit]
Amritnath Ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable ashram. No reliable sources show this ashram to be notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - find sources and expand. Or it may be merged to International_Nath_Order as it seems to be related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep for what? There is no reason and specifically no notability. Also, where are the reliable sources that merit an expansion? Please do explain your comments. Also, please share any reliable sources that show how this is directly related to the International Nath Order. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not related to the International Nath Order and should not be merged with it. If anything, it should be merged to Nath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.55 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light as a feather, stiff as a board

[edit]
Light as a feather, stiff as a board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject is not notable, discussing an obscure party game. There are no sources, and the writers have been unable to find any references to justify notability requirements for some time while the "Unreferenced" template has been there. It was removed from PROD on the grounds of a source spotted on Google Scholar which "looked promising", but no-one involved has actually read. Kan8eDie (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I put a rescue tag on this one, solely because I remember it from an episode of South Park. The girls on the show were playing the game at a sleep over at Bebe's house, I believe, which leads me to believe it may be a larger cultural thing. (The episode where Butter's was disguised as a girl to get the "secret weapon" / finger paper game.) We shall see. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whenever I look at an AfD, I see two things. Arguments for Keep and Arguments for Delete. I cannot make any arguments to keep the article. Bigvinu (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of you who have been back to the first version of the article, before it got cargo culted, here's where to find LeFors Clark:
    • Richard LeFors Clark (1987). "Diamagnetic Gravity Vortexes". In David Hatcher Childress (ed.). Anti-Gravity and the World Grid. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 55–58, 69–70. ISBN 9780932813039.
      Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to just assume it is as bad as it sounds, but the title "Antigravity and the world grid" hardly inspires me that it is a worthwhile source to base an encyclopaedia on. —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this seems like a patent case of WP:MADEUP. While I'm sure it's a game that's actually played, that doesn't make it notable. (Nor does a brief mention in South Park). If someone writes a book on childhood play and devotes some paper to this, maybe. Until then, no. Bfigura (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep well established term and game. Lots of hits on google news. I added a few of them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assorted links to pseudo-science nonsense do not properly reference an article like this. If you want to support their claims of extraordinary things happening with the game, the sources are clearly wrong; if you are trying to document this as a sociological phenomenon, then linking the crackpot articles directly is original research. Has any sociologist or other related disciplinarian written about this game? A lot of junk is on google, which does not make it notable.
      Besides, for some of the sources given, it is unclear that they have any relevance to the article at all. For example, a link to a Google search page clearly documents no fact in the article. —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are to established media. There are lots more on Google News and you're welcome to add them. The sources are simply the best available websites describing and discussing the subject (since many of the citations and news sites aren't available online). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the essay you mention is applicable at all times. It actually wasn't used in defense of the article, but in response to a comment. And sometimes, dare I say, that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, like non-binding verdicts found in my profession, can actually be used as a positive guideline as to show precedent in former, similar AFDs, as opposed to being an essay that deters anyone from bringing up a similar situation. I would hope that if I invoked No Personal Attacks, that people would look into it to see if I had actually been personally attacked, as opposed to letting said invocation end a debate. Law shoot! 06:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It wasn't to justify the article, it was to demonstrate that you didn't look before you leapt. The article doesn't need to be justified, it is independently notable. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It amuses me to note that the sourcing remains extraordinarily slim, consisting mostly of offhand references in columns written around the Halloween season. My complaints about the introduction of bizarre pseudoscience into the article also have not been addressed. Different people have different bars for notability and suitability of inclusion for topics into an encyclopedia about human knowledge (as opposed to trivia). For me, this game/pseudoscientific fringe theory/phrase used in essays clearly doesn't qualify. RayAYang (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is the problem. I am too lazy to develop my own bar for notability. I just use Wikpedia's. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be an ass. The Wikipedia notability guidelines call for judgment and discretion. Reasonable people can and are differing over what constitutes "significant" coverage and what constitutes historical notability. RayAYang (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty surprised that I'm apparently the only one here who played this growing up. I'd argue that it's common enough to appear in the news media (both in articles about the game and in plays on the name of the game), but I do seem to remember that the main reason I got on the subject in the first place was stumbling on the surprising pseudoscientific theories about how the game supposedly works. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I knew going into this that it was likely notable, but stayed neutral until sourced appeared. ChildofMidnight has got a strong start on it, and while the article still needs some organization, that isn't a reason to delete. He has provided more than enough references on the page to show it is as notable as I thought, now it just needs a tag or two and to have the information formatted out. There is no reason to delete now, only a reason to clean up a bit. The fact that many have never heard of this (likely is only a U.S. thing) is *exactly* the reason it belongs, particularly since it is verified. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:While it needs a rewrite (tries too hard to assert notability), the sources and references are enough to establish it as a notable child's game. Law shoot! 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As wel as the sources presented so far there are loads found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 01:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VTL Global Inc

[edit]
VTL Global Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Searching for sources doesn't turn up quality references. As it is, it is a bit of an advert that appears to have little chance of complying with wp:n, wp:v and wp:rs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visopsys

[edit]
Visopsys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

People want to delete Apollo OS (AfD discussion), which is actually much better than this article. So this meets and exceeds the criteria specified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKindOfName (talk • contribs) 2008-11-21 16:22:13

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Me Not (album)

[edit]
Forget Me Not (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional-only sampler(s) for an unreleased album; little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wakeman Parade

[edit]
Jennifer Wakeman Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV movie, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't seem to be - see WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a section for TV shows? I only saw film. I guess I based my judgement on my memory of reading that shows are notable, and in fact there seem to be many articles on individual episodes of shows... But if indeed I'm setting the bar too low then I would suggest a merge to the parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charvet customers

[edit]
List of Charvet customers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As one of the few fashion editors on wikipedia, normally I'm arguing for inclusion of fashion-related articles here. But this list seems to cross the line into unencyclopedic territory. This is a high-end brand, and obviously it has been worn by thousands upon thousands of individuals in its long history. I cannot see why a list like this is encyclopedic, and I don't think it should be merged into the parent article (which at most needs to mention a few representative names). Allowing this would mean allowing List of Chanel customers, List of Yves Saint Laurent customers, List of Hermes customers, etc etc etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nomination reeks of WP:WAX. Let's assess the actual article on its own merits. Is it neutral? Yes. Is it factually accurate? It is thoroughly referenced, so yes. Does it contain original research? No. Is it of interest to our readers? I would argue that for most brands, including Chanel and Yves Sain Laurent which are mass-advertised, the answer would be no. However, for this particular brand I suspect the answer might differ. The custom of Charles Haughey, for example, was the subject of significant interest. The question is whether being a Charvet customer is something of note, of distinction. Is it? the skomorokh 19:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a WAX issue. The I realize that the article is neutral, etc, but the question is whether this topic is encyclopedic. I don't see any meaningful distinction between Charvet and other high fashion brands that would justify an article such as this, and I think it is reasonable to ask whether Wikipedia is a place for lists of customers of various companies. (Maybe Chanel haute couture is more closely analogous to Charvet, at least in the bespoke suit department, but really don't see a meaningful distinction between owning a Charvet tie and an Hermes scarf, or something like that. And in any event I don't think it would be appropriate to have a list of wearers of Chanel haute couture. Moreover, many brands are not advertised, e.g. Dries van Noten or Ann Demeulemeester, to name a couple off the top of my head, so I don't think this is a reasonable place to draw the line.) So I guess in sum I don't believe being a Charvet customer is notable enough to require a list of its own. I cannot imagine any clothing brand that would fit this description. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the nom might fit WP:WAX, this list definitely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charvet have been going longer than almost any equivalent store, since 1836, and the list is too long for the article. It is fully referenced, a great rarity in these articles, and I think sufficiently encyclopedic. I think people only buying ties and ready-made shirts should not be included, though - only bespoke customers. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An alphabetical list is by nature discriminated only by the alphabetical order. Yet, lists have a clear legibility advantage. With reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as a primary author, I have reorganized the article in a more meaningful way, in historical order, by countries and by nature of customers, in order to make it as clear and synthetic as possible, while keeping the list structure. Racconish (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Further edited to remove possible OR Racconish (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just the sort of hard-to-find information WP is good for. I believe if we're restricting it to customers mentioned in secondary sources, it is not an "indiscriminate" list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic material. many obscure things are appropriate here, but not everything Are we prepared to expand this into list from every aristocratic tailor and dressmaker,? DGG (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WAX, again, and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.This is the first shirtmaker ever, 170 years old, quite a special history: worth an article in Wikipedia, which would not be complete without a development on customers. Thank you for saying "many obscure things are appropriate here". If some other are not appropriate, according to you, this can be surmounted. You are welcome on Talk:List of Charvet customers. Please note the list is precisely not a list of rich or aristocraric customers, these have been kept to the minimum. A "customers" section was in the main article Charvet Place Vendôme. It was forked out of for clarity. This was not my personal preference, but I admit it improves the readability of the main article. The question should rather be: Keep or Merge... or maybe Keep or Rename in view of a recent allergy to lists ;-) ... except that lists have the advantage they help minimize WP:OR. Racconish (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and this thing could get freakishly long really fast of people who isn't notable if kept. Tavix (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear WP:JNN and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. I take it you don't find it freakishly long at this point. Back to the core question, per WP:SS: "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." On the other hand, per WP:SIZE:"A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself. In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. It may also violate the neutral point of view policy to create a new article specifically to contain information that consensus has rejected from the main article." As I wrote earlier, this fork-out is for clarity purpose, hence the first case, not the second. Racconish (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, I don't see that the discussion so far lacked thoroughness or participants. It lacked consensus. Per WP:RELIST "relisting a debate should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If closer feels that there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable," with the consequence per WP:NOCONSENSUS to default to keep. This said, in order to ensure constructive discussion, I suggest to take it for granted that, in view of the existence of a "thorough" article on Charvet, we admit some development on Charvet customers are also a legitimate part of Wikipedia. Let's assume also the main article and this development are long enough to consider possible forking out, which does not mean we have to discuss here how long the sub-article should be or what the editing criteria are. The proper AFD question is, according to me: do we prefer to fork out this necessarily minor sub-article or do we prefer to merge it into the main one. As a side note, anybody can check on the history of the main article that it was started out of interest for one of Charvet's customer. Racconish (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 2-4, 7, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ultimately, the list is useful on itself, describing notable people in a well-referenced manner, with a neat organisation clearly showing that a good amount of data can be nicely organised without rambling indiscriminately. The encyclopaedia would suffer as a whole if this were to be deleted or merged back into the main article, which this supports well. Ultimately, the list has to have a certain notability itself, and stand on its own, but with spin-out articles like this, the article is dependant to a certain extent on the main article and its notability. Because the list article does stand on its own, and improves the encyclopaedia, while treating the notable topic of patrons of Charvet, I argue for keep. —Kan8eDie (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on above reference to WP:LC
    • Item 2: "is of interest to a very limited number of people". What about WP:IDONTKNOWIT:"Arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations [...]This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."?
    • Item 3: "is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This has already been discussed above, but let's assume it was not thorough enough. Let's assume also the criteria involved in re-writing the article (historical orders, countries, nature of customers) are not appropriate. The argument boils down to WP:Overcategorization#Non defining or trivial characteristic: Is it a defining criterion? Yes: almost all customers listed have been disclosing it themselves as a characteristic trait.
    • Item 4: "is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable". Unverifiable? No, they are all thoroughly sourced. Non notable? Per WP:NN,in general, reliable independant sources have each time addressed the subject directly. Nevertheless, I am confident some one can always criticize one occurence or another. But not all of them.
    • Item 7: "has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category". The fact is all customers listed have an article dedicated to them, kence a link. I considered it was important to cite only notable people, who deserve a page on Wikipedia. Is this bad?
    • Item 8: "is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia". Cf. above comments on WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Let me rephrase it: in each case, it is - or has in effect been - worth mentioning in a biography of the customer in question.
    • Item 10: "determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas." Really? Do you mean sources search is WP:OR? Racconish (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To support the 'keep' arguments, I note that the article List of bow tie wearers has just come out its fifth AfD alive, despite the best efforts of some. While this proves nothing (which would be a WP:WAX argument), it does strongly suggest that articles like these have a place on WP, as recognised by repeated failure to find a delete consensus, even after multiple listings. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I'd like to see this information in a sortable table, but it should survive regardless. It has an intro and clearly defined boundaries. For some their outfit was even a part of their image (Capone) which suggests the topic itself is a notable one. - Mgm|(talk) 23:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we rename to List of Charvet clients? That seems to be the predominent term used in fashion from what I know. - Mgm|(talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To your point, the following comment received after the above explained change of the list: "I think the list was perhaps better before--now it's looking somewhat like there is a fair amount of original synthesis going on. I might rather just sort it by rough chronology, and within that keep it in alphabetical order." What parameters would you consider for a sortable table? Racconish (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate listing, likely to be horrifically long and unmaintainable, and synonymous with particular milieus. Might be appropriate as a category. Definitely not appropriate as a list. RayAYang (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly NOT appropriate as a category - categories are almost never appropriate as a solution at Afd, as the criteria are higher than for items on a list - it is supposed to be "defining" for erach member. "synonymous with particular milieus" also seems a very odd argument for deletion! Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that categories are capable of accepting indiscriminate and freakishly long lists, whereas lists are properly wikipedia articles, and should not. And by "synonymous with particular milieus" I mean precisely that. Like so many other fashion brands, this shirtmaker has probably gone in and out of periods of extreme popularity. So if there was an era when every aspiring aristocrat in Paris wore one, does that mean we must track down every aristocrat in Paris in that decade? Or just lump in all the ones who already have a wikipedia article? RayAYang (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories can certainly be large, but are less "indiscriminate" than lists, as described above. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an impeccably sourced list best kept separate, for reasons of length, from the parent article. Restricting the list to notable people who also have their specific tailoring detailed in reliable secondary sources keeps this list from being either indiscriminate or "horrifically long". - Dravecky (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. In order to help reaching a consensus and after consideration of some constructive aspects of the discussion so far, I have completely redone the page. A number of customers did not fit the new categories, but the page is now focused and objections based on WP:LC3 addressed. I hope this will meet critics issues. I added a note on Al Capone and Lucky Luciano in the main article and listed removed customers on the Talk page to facilitate further work.Racconish (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Also implemented sortable tables, moved developments on Haughey and Wall (hence, the image) from the main to the sub. Racconish (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC) At this point in the evolution of the article, I propose, pending the issue of the AFD, to rename it Charvet Place Vendôme (notable clients) for the following reasons: it clarifies the dependancy to the main article and the focus on notability; as mentionned above, clients is a better word; finally, lists or tables are just a mean, not a target. Racconish (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Though fully referenced and well done since the rewrite, it still feels indiscriminate. I am not sure that the intersection notable person-Chauvet is really interesting and telling, but even when it is it should be mentioned in the persons article not in a list of essentially disparate people. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

[edit]
Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Is not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dragonforce. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZP Theart

[edit]
ZP Theart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced BLP. Individual is not notable outside of a band. Redirect to band was reverted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Baczynskyj

[edit]
Boris Baczynskyj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability as a chess player; no media coverage indicated other than obituaries. WP:ATHLETE says notability is achieved by competing at the highest level. There is no indication that Baczynskyj ever played in the U.S. (Closed) Championship or in significant international tournaments. He holds the FM title, but we deleted Charles Weldon on grounds of non-notability, and he was a FIDE Master with, as I recall, several state championship titles. For Baczyskyj there is no information beyond the FIDE Master title that is relevant to notability. I see from the USCF obituary that he was editor of Chess Life magazine for two months, but I doubt that is sufficiently notable. I think the consensus among members of WikiProject Chess is that even the higher IM title, without more, is not necessarily enough to confer notability. Most GMs, the highest title, don't even have Wikipedia articles. Krakatoa (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Weldon also won the US Amateur Championship and was on the cover of Chess Life as a result. FWIW. Bubba73 (talk), 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability for Boris should take into account his local Philly status and contributions to the community.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think deleting Charles Weldon was a mistake if he actually won titles. That said, Fide Master says: "The most usual way for a player to qualify for the FIDE Master title is by achieving a FIDE Rating of 2300 or more. The title is open to both men and women who play in international chess competitions." so he must've played international championships that can be referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Responding to Tstrobaugh: His contributions to the community might be relevant to notability, but the article says nothing about them. Responding to Mgm: the text you quote may not be accurately stated. One has to participate in tournaments that are rated by FIDE in order to get a FIDE Master title, but I don't believe that there is a requirement that the tournaments must be "international", i.e. that they have players from different countries. I should also have made clear (as I have now tried to do by adding the word "significant") that I don't believe that participation in any international tournament would be notable. A tournament like the U.S. Open is international in the sense that it has players from other countries, but since it is open to anyone, simply playing in it can't be enough to make one notable. Krakatoa (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd echo Krakatoa's opening comments. For male players in the modern era, the minimum criteria is (loosely) IM title plus something outstanding, for example national champion, national/euro/world junior champion, top coach, renowned chess writer, or maybe winner of a prestigious international tournament. Anything less would certainly open the floodgates. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, we have to set up a limit somewhere. SyG (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IM title is in my view the borderline state, FM is below that; national champions and GMs are generally sufficiently notable as they are almost always the subject of press attention. The FM title does not mean that you have had to play in any international championship, just that you have gotten a 2300+ rating from playing in tournaments which are FIDE rated (and those are common, including the open section of the local Bergen Grand Prix I expect to be playing in this weekend.) An FM title is an accomplishment, and evidence of being a strong player; but not an outstandingly strong player of top level like the GM title indicates. Most FMs are not professional chess players. Some exceptions, such as John Cox, can be made, but that's because of them being national champions or (in the case of Cox) prolific authors of chess books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. Unless I'm missing something, there is no Wikipedia article on John Cox the chessplayer and author. However, he is an IM, not an FM as you seem to think. Graham Burgess is an example of an FM who's written a lot and is the subject of a Wikipedia article. Krakatoa (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. The book I have by him ("Starting Out:Alekhine's Defense") says he is an FM, but he has apparently gotten the IM title since then. You are also right that we don't have an article on him, but if we did, I would support including it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Cluster Prime

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Escape from Cluster Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV special. Plot summary and trivia, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved admin Speedy keep only applies in cases of a bad faith nomination. Six weeks is plenty of time for consensus to change! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my comment, according to IMDB[10] it actually won one. That's good enough for me. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Don't see how I missed that. Silly me. RayAYang (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not present real world context through significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Winning an Emmy only gives us one sentence, we can't call that significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't aware that this had already been nominated, nor was I aware of the Emmy nomination. The Emmy nomination says something, but it's still not enough to go on given that we have virtually no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To delete something that was Emmy-nominated would hurt, but I know from working on Emmy-winning stuff (episodes) that an Emmy nom is no guarantee at all that real-world information for improvement exists. I suggest to withdraw and open a merge proposal. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't make any sense. We're in an AFD with a deletion reasoning supported by policy and guideline with no counter-argument being supported by policy or guideline. If there aren't sources, there aren't sources. There isn't anything to merge, because there aren't sources. Jay32183 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carey

[edit]
Ian Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find any notable information. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 16:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McRae: Dirt 2

[edit]

I reverted my AfD nomination on this article as it was quickly demonstrated that my initial reason for the nomination was questionable. Obviously, if other people feel that the AfD was valid, it should be reinstated. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McRae: Dirt 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's one sentence in the article, which is also in the Colin McRae: Dirt article. Nothing has been reported about this game apart from that it's in production and it's being released in '09. This article does not yet meet the notability criteria. A redirect to the original article should be used for now until it has received significant coverage to demonstrate its notability. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems there is more information than I first thought. None of it has been added to the article though. PS. please see your talk page with regards to assuming good faith. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are all those articles pointing to the same thing? (i.e. just giving a few short details about the game being released in 2009?). Or do they go into greater and more specific detail about it. If they don't I don't think it should have it's own article right now. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that initially but some of them, particularly the IGN interview, do contain some useful information. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kodomo manga

[edit]
Kodomo manga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Kodomo manga/anime is not a notable term in English. The article is a stubborn attempt to needlessly conform with the shōnen and shōjo articles. In reality, Japanese comics aimed at children aren't different enough from children's literature of the rest of the world to merit a distinction. Suggest turning it into a redirect to Children's literature. Remurmur (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Its unsourced, but on what basis do you say its not a term widely used in Japan for the genre? DGG (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By your definition Shonen and Shojo are not notable terms in english (within the anime fanbase yes but not in the wider language), you certainly won't find then in an english dictionary. The question is if they are notable enough within the context of having their own article - thats a completely different thing. What about Seinen or Josei? Not notable words in the english language, but important in the context of anime and manga articles. As is common, my suggestion is to improve the article rather then delete it Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the term is notable in Japan (though more for "kodomomuke anime" instead), and there are at least 19 different interwiki links to articles in other languages. While most of them are stubs, this lends itself to indicating the term is notable and worthy of an article. Also, you may apparently didn't notice the request that more material be translated from the Japanese article. There is no deadline for Wikipedia articles, and given how much material is in the Japanese article, I'd say that's a good indication that this article needs more time to be translated. I could see it being renamed (based on the Japanese article),but not deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are reliable source documenting the subject and the use of the term, then an article is fully warranted. Just because it is a non-English term or subject does not disqualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia. While this is an English language Wikipedia, that does not mean that the scope of our topics are limited to just the English language. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I note that the Japanese article, the one with a standing request to translate, has actual references, which is more than many ja.wiki articles. This creates the very strong presumption that reliable sources exist discussing this publisher term of art -- one that, because of adoption by English manga publishers is also becoming a term of art in the Anglosphere (though not as much as shounen or shoujo). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable source to establish notability, no reason given why this should be separate from Children's literature and Children's television series articles (or not be simply included in the manga and anime articles). Might as well write an English article titled Littérature d'enfance et de jeunesse to discuss the name and concept of children literature in French speaking countries, and repeat the same for all cultures. The name changes depending on the language, but the subject is essentially the same.--Boffob (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the evidence presented its a genre, and this is the recognized term for it. Though I do take Boffob's view into account. it seems reasonable to me that particularly stylized types of a national literature would have a distinctive name. DGG (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my main issue is the lack of sources. How do we know it's a recognized term and that it's separate enough from other cultures to warrant being out of children's lit, or why this tiny amount of material coudln't be included in manga and anime, if it's not all there already? There's not a single citation, thus no evidence of notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-exclusive ethnic group

[edit]
Non-exclusive ethnic group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NOR violation - the title is a neologism

I have done a considerable amount of research on ethnicity and ethnic groups and have not come across this term. Perhaps predictably, when googling the first four or five entries are for Wikipedia and wikipedia derived articles; it gets only 42f hits. My main concern is that this apparent neologism distorts mainstream social science which agrees that although ethnic groups are usually popularly conceived of as being exclusive, virtually all ethnic boundaries are at times porous. The point is, that the complex relationship and often gulf between peoples beliefs about ethnic groups and the actual history and social dynamics of ethnic groups is a topic which ought to be covered in more depth in the article on Ethnic groups, so as to explain why for social scientists the distinction between "exclusive ethnic groups" and "non-exclusive ethnic groups" is a false distinction and not used by social scientists.

I believe that this article is virtually all original research; the talk page indicates that it was written to express the views of editors. It has had a request for citations template for over one year and no citations have been added in that time. Now it is time to delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarification: I had some initial difficulty finding the source because there is no Journal of Peace. The article itself exists, but was published in the Journal of Democracy, 14-33, not 14-23. The term "Non-exclusive ethnic group" does not occur in this article, nor in any article contained in JSTOR or EBSCO host. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the opinions written above were written AFTER this edit, so that the people who opined couldn't really see what the article said. So (1) Nominate for deletion; then (2) Delete most of the article's content to make it look ridiculous; then (3) Let people opine on it.
  • How many people who opined above clicked on "What links here"? Could it be that the main reason for the existence of this article is the link from Judaism? That might tell you where to look for sources that should be cited here.
Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As User:Mandsford has pointed out above, the article is not worthwhile even if the section recently deleted by User:Dbachmann is restored. Let us assume that the editors who have voted to delete did sufficient research. Aramgar (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
objection -- this is exactly how AfDs should be done. Unreferenced material was removed, leaving it obvious that the article isn't talking about anything the title suggests. Hence delete. If people bring up references for the term at some point in the future, the article can always be recreated. --dab (𒁳) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I filed for the AfD before DAB removed the material in question. Obviously I believe strongly that even with the material since deleted, the article is a very strong candidate for deletion. People are free to look at the edit history and see what material exactly DAB deleted today. My point: that material was in the article for a long time, with a call for citations for the past year, and no citations were ever or have yet to be provided. I do not believe appropriate reliable sources exist for the material DAB deleted. whether that material was kept in or removed from the article, the article itself should still be deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not how AfDs should be done. Unreferenced material that is needed for the nature of the article to be understood should be left intact to see whether references for it can be found. The fact that it's a bad article (if it is) is NOT grounds for deletion. That it's bad topic, unworthy of an article, is grounds for deletion. If it's a bad article on a good topic, the remedy is to rewrite the article, not to delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've put "citation needed" tags in the appropriate places. The assertions should not be deleted while the article is listed here. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where have I said that the reason this article should be deleted is it is a bad article? Why do you misrepresent my reasoning? Did you even read my explanation for nominating it for deletion? The topic is non-existent in reliable sources, the idea the article represents if original research - how is this not appropriate grounds for nominating deletion? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Michael Hardy should do a little bit of research before suggestion that my nomination to delete has anything to do with the Judaism article. "Non-exclusive ethnic group" does not appear in the visible text of the article, nor in the "see also" section. Moreover, the link was added only today (November 21, 2008)[24]. The article nominated for deletion was created April 18, 2004 - more than four years ago!! Your suggestion "that the main reason for the existence of this article is the link from Judaism" is simply false. I explained my main reason for deleting the article and your implication that it has anything to do with the Judaism article shows a massive failure to assume good faith on my part. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong It was NOT added only today. I saw it there several years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I never said the reason for the AfD had anything to do with the Judaism article. I said the Judaism article may have been the occasion for the existence of the article now under discussion in the first place. This story to the effect that the link was added only today is nonsense. I first became aware of the non-exclusive ethnic group article several years ago by following the link from the Judaism article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Judaism talk page, you state that you consider this a suspicious nomination for deletion; in your own comments, you suggest I have made an argument for deletion that I never made - both of these show a massive lack of good faith on your part. As to the Judaism link, it was not there yesterday, it was not there a year ago, it was not there two years ago. Perhaps once you really did see the link there, but it has not been there for a long time, a long enough that the claim that it was added today - and yes, I provided an edit diff. - is not "nonsense" and should not be dismissed so bruskly. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to be suspicious of AfD nominations because people tend to think, mistakenly, that the fact that an article is written badly is grounds for deletion (and sometimes they treat the fact that they don't understand the article as grounds for deletion, although that doesn't apply in this case). A lack of sources for certain claims in this article is a case of being written badly. That is what I meant when I said I was suspicious of the nomination.
And a correction: It was in June 2004 that I found a link to this article in the article titled Jew, not the one titled Judaism. So that's not a brand-new link.
I think I first heard of this concept in a book by Robert Heinlein written in the 1950s. Heinlein cannot be considered an authoritative source; he probably found the idea in writings of anthropologists. But that means the idea was around long before someone wrote this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thank you for the clarification on Jew/Judaism. Nevertheless, I have not read any significant scholar on Jewish history or sociology identify them as a "non-exclusive ethnic group," nor have I read any sociologist or anthropologist writing on ethnicity use the term. Social scientists generally do not classify ethnic groups as exclusive vs. non-exclusive but instead analyze why and how virtually all ethnic boundaries are porous, shift, or are redefined at certain times. This article just does not reflect any scholarship or scholarly concept I know of. By the way, Heinlein was one of a very small number of authors who really "got" anthropology ... but in this case, he either made up the term or was quoting a scholar whose work today is simply too obscure to merit an article. I am not sure if I have ever nominated an article for deletion before, it is not something I do lightly. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely OR and OS;the one source doesn't even mention the word.--Woland (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather worthless from an encyclopedic standpoint. Get rid of it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a subject here, but this really isn't it. For starters, sociologist Michael Banton's first characteristic of racial and ethnic groups, that of boundaries, is that ethnic groups are defined as being the results of inclusive processes. (A group resulting from exclusive processes is a racial group, by Banton's definition. — Peter M. E. Figueroa (1991). Education and the Social Construction of "race". Routelege. p. 11. ISBN 0415009146.) So at least one sociologist by definition asserts that there's no such thing as an exclusive ethnic group, implying that there's nothing to distinguish a non-exclusive ethnic group from a plain ethnic group.

    The problem is that this article is collateral damage from the perennially bubbling war about Judaism on Wikipedia, created by one of its participants and propagated to other articles (where it was strongly disputed), rather than a real discussion of ethnic groupings as they are understood by scholars in the field. This really is original research, inasmuch as it is a novel explanation of a subject that really isn't what actual sources on the subject say, or even how they present their discussions of the subject.

    This isn't an article in accordance with our policies now, and I don't see any way to refactor it to match actual scholarship when we already have an article on ethnic groups that can be improved by discussion of Barton's definitions, where such discussion belongs. About the best this could be is a redirect, but given that I, like so many editors above, cannot find sources treating this as an actual subject, and only one source even using these words as a phrase, such a redirect doesn't seem worthwhile. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete During my social studies I have never run across a definition of ethnicity that allowed completely exclusive ethnic groupings. This is to my knowledge a non-distinction in social sciences and untill some much better references are included to say the opposite the article should be deleted.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the reason this article has excited such a negative reaction is that it questions the validity of 'ethnicity' as a means of scientifically classifying human beings. I would be reluctant to have it deleted for this reason alone. RashersTierney (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything in my explanation for my nomination to support your claim? Do you have any evidence that this is the reason? Your explanation makes no sense to me and while I am sure you were acting in good faith I am inclined simply to ignore your point, unless you can provide some support. I do not even know what you mean by suggesting that the article rejects any scientific view of ethnicity ... I do not see that at all as a factor, in the article itself, let alone in the nomination for deletion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Ethnicity', as with any system of classification, is predicated on exclusivity at some level. The notion that you can have classification otherwise is nonsense. But the title of this article challenges a frequently unquestioned paradigm that may or may not have any scientific merit, whether biologically or socially constructed (it usually attempts to have a leg in both camps). In my opinion the article should not be so hastily scrubbed. My comment was not directed at any particular editor. RashersTierney (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your responding and explaining your view. Thank you. In response I would say that most social scientists agree that social classifications, unlike mathematical or logical ones, are not necessarily predicated on exclusivity at some level, this comes out clearly in the work of Fried (1975) and debates between Evans Pritchard and Fortas following Evans Pritchard 1940. I am afraid that you cannot use a reliable source on logic or mathematics to make a claim about an object of sociological study, just like one cannot assume that what experts agree about rocks applies to logic. You need reliable sources by scholars for whom ethnicity is their object of study/field of expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no shortage of theorists (Stuart Hall for one), who recognise that 'ethnicity' has no more validity than 'race' as a basis for human classification. The term has recently gained ground as an alternative word where 'race' would formerly have been used. The latter term has unambiguous associations with Nazism and other since-discredited expressions of scientific racism but the value of such classification by alternative wording is no less dubious. RashersTierney (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Stuart Hall definitely views ethnic boundaries as fluid and porous and not organized in terms of rigid degrees of exclusion, he definitely supports my point: social scientists do not use this term, "non-exclusive ethnic group" because none of them think that ethnic groups are ever really exclusive, although sometimes there are folk beliefs that their group may be exclusive, social scientists do not. Ethnicity, for Stuart Hall, is not predicated on ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking at cross-purposes but thank you for engaging. RashersTierney (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I regret the cross-purposes, I must not understand your main point. But you are welcome, and i appreciate your engaging too - I think others will understand your reluctance better. For what it is worth, I think that to the extent that these are issues that scholars are debating (for example, the racist implications of exclusive classifications, Walter Benn-Michaels arguments about culture replacing race, and anything else you thought could be of value in this article), I do believe Wikipedia articles should engage them. If you feel that there are issues that might be overlooked through the deletion of this article, I would ask you, sincerely, to look at the article on Ethnic groups and see how such issues can and should be engaged in that article. I may have missed your point here, but it sounds to me like you have something valuable to contribute to that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The value of this article, as I see it, is only in its potential to challenge the reification of 'ethnicity'. I agree, as currently constituted, it doesn't do so very well. I'm not sure it is even redeemable as an article, but hoped a discussion as to whether it should be deleted might bring out some new ideas. It hasn't been defended very well and I'm not sure I've anything more to add regarding its retention or otherwise.RashersTierney (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are probably right. But this discussion reveals that you are a good person to see if the reification fallacy is effectively treated in the Ethnic groups article and, if not, for you to make such edits as you consider necessary and sufficient. I am taking your larger point to be that Wikipedians should not shy away from this, and I am suggesting a place exists where it can and should be engaged ... and hoping you will look at that article and see how you might find ways for that article to accomplish what I agree is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per Glass Cobra's expansion. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gehman

[edit]
Don Gehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prolific producer, produced everyone from rock to country. I've been unable to find any significant sources for him, however; everything I turned up said simply "Working with producer Don Gehman, the band blah blah blah" or somesuch. Article has also been a barely-ever-touched stub since 2005, and I don't think there's much more to say here than "he produced a lot of albums", so I'd say he fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've spent a little time researching and added several sources to the article. Apologies that you do not feel that a producer doing his job is enough to qualify for notability. Is there much more to say for any producer than "he produced a lot of albums"? No, probably not, but the fact that he produced a lot of albums is key. GlassCobra 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club DD

[edit]
Club DD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable website, article created by user with same name as article Paste (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam (actor)

[edit]
Shyam (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

IMDB filmography and bio indicate non-notable. Unable to find references in quick GS (of course, not dispositive). The referenced "famous movie" shows no indication of fame or classic status in its IMDB listing. The notability criteria for entertainers are:

  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
No evidence that any of the 12 movies (according to IMDB) the subject has been in is itself notable (no awards, no ratings). IMDB isn't necessarily definitive on all aspects of of Indian movies, but it's a very comprehensive starting point.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Unable to see evidence of this from IMBD or an Internet search.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
12 films is not prolific, no claim or evidence upon search of unique or innovative contributions.

Bongomatic 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "superstar" bit in the reference cited above appears to refer to a different actor, called Saigal, who died in 1947. Nsk92 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about "stars who dominated Bombay cinema at any given time". Juzhong (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the construction, "Sagal was perhaps the first real superstar...others I recall are...Shyam", mean that Shyam is being listed as another superstar? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think that is a stretch and is not directly supported by the text. There are a few other intervening nouns between "superstar" and Shyam's name in the text. E.g. "The other name I associate with the period" where Ashok Kumar is discussed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was an important early star who died tragically at a very young age and since his movies were vintage we find next to nothing on him on the net however there is an entry on him in the IMDB. Hence this article is a starting point from where we hope more facts may be unearthed --Sidsahu (talk) , 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hampden-White

[edit]
Colin Hampden-White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of the most prominent features of this page is the claim that the subject of the page, a Mr.C.Hamden-White, has an apparent right to use the title 'Sir', indicating that he has at some time been awarded a Britsh Knighthood. After looking into the matter as thoroughly as is reasonably possible I have not been able to fing any evidence of any kind to substantiate this claim nor, it should be added, to the claim that his wife is entitled to be addressed as 'Lady'. In particular, on the web-site of the 'Rebecca Hossack Art Gallery' which would appear to be a bona-fide representative of him in some of his professional work, no claim is made to any such Knighthood either on the page where his name is first presented or on the page giving his 'curriculm vitae'.

Once this aspect of Mr.Hampden-White's identity is removed I cannot see any other substantial reason why the page should be in Wikipedia. It would appear to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the professional career of its subject.

In addition to this I would suggest that the deletion of this page should go ahead for a related reason. Now that the page has been created, and added to, the name of Mr.Hampden White, complete with its apparently fictitious title, is being posted onto other Wikipedia pages - for example those of both the school and the university which the page claims that he attended. In effect the first Wikipedia page is been used as a source of reference and authority for the others. The fiction is being repeated over and over. CtznofRvna (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I have to question the good faith of this nomination. Leaving aside the issue of the knighthood, which can be deleted from the article if there are no sources to support it, this artist is clearly notable. As is oft said in AfD discussions, AfD is not appropriate where clean up or a little rewriting is appropriate. (Disclaimer: I have helped with the formatting of this article since it was first created). ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment. Also, AFD discussions need to be for articles that need major help not ones that need a few minor edits to be fixed. Another thing, this artist is definetly notable. Somebody please close this AFD! HairyPerry 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title is of course irrelevant to notability one way or another. But I see no evidence that he meets the requirements for creative artists. The photography has won no awards--those mentioned in the article are minor awards for films, for films that used some of his still photography--they are not awards for his work,and he does not have the major responsibility for the film--the producer & director do. I see no major exhibitions. I see nothing published about his life or work except the gallery announcements for his exhibitions. There's a local news story for a local exhibition he curated, but that isn't notability. None of his work is in museums or major private collections. I am surprised that anyone would claim notability, or the suggestion that Wikipedia should accept this self-advertising with essentially no 3rd party references- . DGG (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If DGG is satisfied that the article should go, that's enough for me. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that having his work exhibited in multiple independent galleries is sufficient to establish notability. And his newspaper work (I'm not sure how to judge notability of this, but the fact his work has featured in top-rank national publications must mean something) should not be overlooked, either. JulesH (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DGG's arguments are quite persuasive. He's a photographer, but is he notable? Not to mention the promotional quality of the article itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited -- being still-photographer for some films that may have been notable does not make him notable. For a photographer, the most likely relevant criterion of WP:CREATIVE is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" and he does not seem to pass that standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article may have been created by Mr Hampden-White. I can find no reference to him being a knight at all, having checked the London Gazette and honours lists, and he's got to be in very high class society to get married at Wesminster Abbey. The article was created by a user named 'Colari', which happens to be an aliasColin uses: see [27]. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a tough one. The article needs MAJOR clean up and netrality. Some of the references don't reference the fact (e.g a map to the gallery is not evidance he had a major exibit there). His own web site doesnt count. But, however bad the article, this is not a reason to delete. The question is what will the result be after all the cleanup? The fact is there is not enough left. This chap is a normal hard working photographer. Not a notable one. Having a picture 'he took' in the Times is not the same as having 'his' picture in the Times. His name mentioned on a gallery list is not the same as a feature article about him. Frustration at a poor article aside, this is a non notable photographer.Obina (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the title is a very old family title and is inherited. The Hampden family have been in England since around 1015 ad. I am an aqauintance and also happen to know that after his wedding at Westminster Abbey, his reception was held in The House of Lords which was sponsored by Baroness Thornton ( Labour peer ). One would hardly think that he is a fake with that type of support. On the matter of notability as a photographer; The Facing East project (which there is a link to) is to be exhibited in January. This is listed on the homepage of the site. He has also not just had the odd photograph in the national and international press. He has been consistantly published since 2001. As a matter of interest he is also part of the DA! Collective and has work exhibited there at the moment. He only started to go down the fine art route this year (May), got a gallery by June, was exhibiting very soon after that, has already had work on Cork Street. I think this is a photographer of new notability and one would imagine the page on him will grow and grow quickly, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. If it is writed badly then re-write it. Lastly, why not simply ask him the questions, he can be contacted through his website. I'm sure it helps his PR as does many an article, but as long as it is truthful and as it goes along the good and the bad of his fine art career are listed who can complain? I know that he knows the main writer of the piece as he has pased on info and images to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.59.109 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — 79.72.59.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. It is my understanding that knighthoods are not inherited in British law. Additionally, while earning a knighthood himself would likely indicate some level of notability, inheriting a low-level heritable title (say baronet) would not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment His family's notability does not make him notable. In terms of the evidence of having a photo or 2 in a gallery, this could lead to notability. But it hasn't yet. After there is, for example, a feature on him in the Times (or a photo magazine for that matter) because of these photos, then we can summarize this here. But it is not for us to judge that these photos will make him notable - it is non trivial mentions in independent 3rd party sources. (And sorry but is 'new notablity' a synonym for 'not yet notable')Obina (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any delete position DGG carries significant weight. Not that it is needed, but ... zero Google news, books, and scholar hits, but numerous Google web hits usually means either the Wikipedia article is named incorrectly or the topic likely lacks enough Wikipedia reliable source material to maintain an independent article on the topic and that Wikipedia is next on this list of places to promote the topic. Most telling is that Colin Hampden-White obviously is important and has done significant things, yet no independent third-party source has chosen to write about his life in sufficient detail. I also find it amazing that professional photographer Colin Hampden-White would allow ten images in which he owns to be freely posted on Wikipedia in the above article so that others can take them and use then without paying him. Comment A more fitting topic may have been Artwork of Colin Hampden-White which would have different needs than those of a Wikipedia biography. -- Suntag ☼ 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC
  • Note The name 'Colin Hampden-White', with its additional title, was placed on the page for Downside School by user Colari on 6 July 2008. The title, but not the name, was removed by a different user (Cjc13) on 20 November 2008 with the comment 'no reference found' included in the edit summary. CtznofRvna (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we have evidence he is a working photographer, but we have no evidence that he is a notable photographer -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 Rooms of Hell

[edit]
8 Rooms of Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Author contested PROD. WP:CRYSTAL, no sources. GlassCobra 13:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Deletion guidelines specifically state a lack of activity is not a valid reason for deletion. Especially since this can be resolved by normal editing. Mgm|(talk) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hill

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Karen Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable gangster's wife... Previously nominated, and result was a consensus to merge with Henry Hill... nothing has been done to complete the merge... Adolphus79 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fort Institute

[edit]
Charles Fort Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Organization has received no outside notice from anyone except themselves and fellow Fortean enthusiasts. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY and the withdrawal of the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous error reporting

[edit]
Asynchronous error reporting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google turns up 233 hits, of which 36 unique, with the highest being Wikipedia and mirrors (so not actually unique after all), plus newsgroup postings. No reliable sources. Looks like this fails WP:NEO. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic may be notable, but this article is fairly hopeless. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it lack hope? In the stub notice that asks you to expand it? In the now explanatory title? Or in the sources both already used and available as further reading? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have any coverage in sources beyond what's already here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the page numbers on the book citations. Several pages in a book don't translate to two paragraphs of encyclopaedia article. This is why this is a stub, and is marked with an appropriate stub template, and why at least one of the books is in the Further reading section of the article. ☺ And that's without taking the MSDN article or any WWW pages there might be on this topic into account. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and broaden further. Uncle G already renamed to Event-Based Asynchronous Pattern and rewrote the article accordingly. In my opinion that's still not broad enough, since that's only the callback variant of the client side of asynchronous method invocation. Other common variants are polling (computer science) and blocking at an arbitrary time after the method was started. It's possible to offer all variants in a single implementation, so that the user has the full choice, and that's what .NET Framework does. [28] If the article is kept, I will rename it to asynchronous method invocation and broaden its scope accordingly. This will close a real gap in our coverage, since our (underdeveloped) article on the important Active object design pattern uses the term without any explanation.
I don't know if "keep" is the appropriate !vote in this case; "rename" doesn't seem appropriate because the article in its current state doesn't fit the name I propose. I would have no problem with deletion, since I can still create the new article in that case. But it seems more proper to preserve the history. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I have extended the article to 7KB by broadening the scope further to the asynchronous pattern, aka asynchronous method invocation (the article's new name), aka IOU pattern. The article now explains why this pattern is important, and it has numerous sources. It's a technical topic, but notability-wise it's definitely not at the lower end of the scale of what we cover. In fact, this is one of the most fundamental and important software design patterns related to concurrency. It was introduced as an article in Dr. Dobb's Journal. By now it is a standard element of Microsoft Windows programming, and therefore the focus of numerous book chapters. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been renamed and completely rewritten and now has nothing to do with that of 6 November. So I think it should be kept because new version is about an important concept in programming and contains a lot of sources. Ruslik (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caliper Corporation

[edit]
Caliper Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No question this company exists, but there's no evidence it's a notable company. Ghits and news hits are primarily press releases and brief mentions that don't establish notability per WP:CORP Also including:

StarM 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Found this company mentioned in several reliable sources, some I can only see abstracts, Merge TransCAD for the Web into company article:
    • Cline, Michael E. "Mapping Solutions Under $500." Online 29.3 (May 2005): 27-30.
    • Gimpel, Jim. "Computer Technology and Getting Out the Vote." Campaigns & Elections 24.8 (Aug. 2003): 39.
    • Pinkston, Will. "Software Makes Redistricting Easier, Accessible." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 237.80 (24 Apr. 2001): B1.
    • Livingston, Brian. "Update your business market analysis with 21st century data." InfoWorld 20.52/01 (28 Dec. 1998): 32.
    • "Tech." Planning 64.7 (July 1998): 31.
    • Sullivan, Ann C. "Urban simulations." Architecture 87.5 (May 1998): 212.
    • "New products: Application development." Computerworld 30.1 (26 Dec. 1995): 75.
    • Greenberg, Ilan. "Caliper SDK adds mapping data to apps." InfoWorld 17.48 (27 Nov. 1995): 32.
    • Brown, Bruce. "Maptitude: Mapping software with low hurdles." PC Magazine 14.15 (12 Sep. 1995): 56.
    • Coffee, Peter. "Maptitude shows aptitude for informative charting." PC Week 12.31 (07 Aug. 1995): 83.
    • Somers, Asa. "Maptitude: Maps and a whole lotta data." PC Magazine 14.12 (27 June 1995): 62.
    • Marshall, Patrick. "Maptitude offers GIS aptitude at low cost." InfoWorld 17.21 (22 May 1995): 92.
    • Morrow-Jones, Charles R., et al. "SOFTWARE REVIEWS." Professional Geographer 44.1 (Feb. 1992): 103-108. --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment that proves it exists, not that it's notable. I find it hard to argue keep on those grounds since you said, you can only see abstracts. No one is questioning its existence, but I don't know that those meet WP:CORP. StarM 15:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the several articles about its individual products into the article about the business itself. The sources mentioned seem to indicate significant independent coverage of at least one of the products in widely distributed consumer publications. Maptitude seems to be the most notable product, so alternative some portion of this could be merged into that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the company does seem to be a major one in the field from the references. As forthe products, one could consider merging, but that should be discussed on the talk page there.DGG (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captain Tucker confirmed it passes WP:RS. The article needs better referencing, to be certain, but I don't agree with the belief that this is a non-notable company. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McMountain

[edit]
McMountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is an apparent protologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and even if this is beyond a simple definition, I can find no reliable sources verifying that this has any usage, much less widespread usage. Note that Google web and book bring up many false positives, but none I can see that are about the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by TexasAndroid as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmenta

[edit]
Fragmenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Prod removed by anon IP without comment. Bachrach44 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sissi dai

[edit]
Sissi dai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined, article lists just one CD, but none of the other MUSIC criteria have been examined. Bringing here for community consensus before deciding. Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Half-Life 2. Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance (Half-Life 2)

[edit]
The Resistance (Half-Life 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely in-universe, not a single drop of notability, verifiability or significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. This page is purely original research from people playing the games and reads like a fan page, of little use to someone who hasn't played the games, as a result. Other Half-Life characters and organisations may be equally messy, but they have a chance of being properly cleaned up. This doesn't, and should be deleted. The article has been tagged for these problems since April this year. -- Sabre (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Village

[edit]
Karen Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense and while it is not the best piece of writing, it clearly doesn't qualify. There were too many unrelated google hits to quickly determine if it had any merit, so I'm bringing it here. Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and rewrite , finding some geographic coordinates and other basic stuff. All villages are notable. (assuming information can be found to show it does exist). DGG (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the second option of WP:PN, with no objection to recreating an article that's cogent. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I just demonstrated with my edit that took less than 10 minutes, there is plenty of meaningful (if unsourced) content in the article. It is now clear, though not perfect, and assuming the article is based on facts, it is notable and should be kept. Keep unless anyone can demonstrate that the village's existance is itself untruthful. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhead Publishing Limited

[edit]
Woodhead Publishing Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company where tags have been removed and appears to be no more than an advert? Paste (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I added a G12. — neuro(talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close Not a deletion issue. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Electras

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

This band is nn. Any claim of notability is through the future life and career of its bassist, politician John Kerry.

This article should be merged and redirected to an appropriate section of Kerry's biog. Dweller (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FMX (event)

[edit]
FMX (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whist there is scant notability, it hasn't been sufficiently established. The article is essentially a summary of their website. Further the article creator's account was blocked for user-name policy (promotional use) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Energy systems. Deletion not required. Wrong venue Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphate energy system

[edit]
Phosphate energy system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason This stub is not necessary since the phosphate energy system is covered in the article Energy systems in just as much detail. Freikorp (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preacher's kid

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Preacher's kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unencyclopedic, unsalvageable, tagged for more than a year with no improvement. Even a good article would only be a dicdef for a neologism, assuming this even could rise to the level of being a neologism. Was up for deletion years back, people voting didn't really give any good rationale based upon policies, and no improvements since then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Guy. There may be an article on this topic, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The notion that the children of clergymen differ from others in personality, lifestyle, and religious habits is one of those stereotypes from folklore that's been kicking around for as long as I can remember. A decent article could be written about the stereotype and folklore, and this article seems to be a workable start. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is referenced and improving as this AFD has been developed. To refute Guy's ratioanle, deletion has never been a cleanup techinque. If the topic is notable, and the article is not BLP or other violations, then we don't simply delete because there are grammar or formatting issues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely. This is a significant issue. Part of the problem that the parents' ministry can result in a disputed home life where a "preacher's kid" does not receive enough attention from a parent, who also have to look after members of his congregation. This can lead to theri children going off the rails. This is definitely a notable topic. The present article is perhaps not a good one, but means it should be tagged for improvement; it should certainly not be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The St Petersburg Times article defines the problem. The Time article "Preacher's kid" does not, but its title shows that the mag expects readers to understand the term. It's a good example of the problems faced by children of notable parents ("notable" in the real word sense), and ought to be linked into a package of articles about sociological topics. I don't understand why it appears on AfD at all. --Philcha (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. kurykh 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International Film Festival

[edit]
Oxford International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film festival. A grand total of three mentions in the Lexis archives, only one of which (Richard O Jones, Dayton Daily News, April 6, 2008, "Oxford film festival getting bigger, better") is an actual article about the festival. The others are JUDY WELLS, Florida Times-Union, May 18, 2008, "Film fest entry has local ties" (mention in passing: "So far it has been accepted for the Savannah, Sarasota, Hoboken International, Johns Hopkins and Oxford International film festivals, but as Suzanne said, 'The Jacksonville one was the most important to him.'") and Matt Hildner, The Pueblo Chieftain, April 25, 2008, "Film on the range: Home-building effort chronicled in movie" (mention in passing: "Earlier this month, it won Shiveley the award of Emerging Artist from the jury at the Oxford International Film Festival in Ohio.")

Also nominating J.C. Schroder (23-year-old film director whose primary claim to notability is founding this festival) and Star Com Productions (production company whose primary claim to notability is producing this festival), both created by the same editor and then both edited by his apparent alterego. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that I'm not an alter-ego -- apologies if my edits moved the article in the wrong direction (I am, indeed, new to Wikipedia). I believe the festival fits the notability requirements, but could certainly do with the inclusion of more of its press coverage as references. J.C. Schroder's website lists press/media for himself & the festival at http://www.jcschroder.com/press.htm As I don't maintain that website, I don't have access to all of those articles, but will see which ones would do best to supplement the information in the wiki article. A starting point would probably be its listing in the Hollywood Reporter (4/5/07 - Hollywood Reporter - Prints Oxford Film Festival Listing) and discussion on NPR (4/6/07 - National Public Radio 88.5 (WMUB) Hour Long Radio Show "OIFF & MAFIA"). I'll try to find better references to them than the founder's website. Getsource (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another note. Another editor removed the prod for OIFF because they noted that Wrath of Gods made its US debut there. That's true, but it's actually a Canadian movie and showed two months earlier in Canada. In any event, notability is not inherited and I don't think that that makes this film festival worthy of inclusion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied as G11 by Efe (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure.. Blair - Speak to me 10:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family nightclub

[edit]
Family nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not 100% comfortable with marking as a speedy as it does make some assertion of notability and some nightclubs do have articles. I also don't know exactly what notability section it comes under (buildings?). Blair - Speak to me 10:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh Wikipedia

[edit]
Kazakh Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable encyclopedia. Notability isn't vicarious, it requires reliable sources on the subject, of which this has none. MBisanz talk 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. 4 unanimous keep !votes, blatantly meets WP:N, (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Hamsa Ultralights

[edit]
Raj Hamsa Ultralights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Search generated no material references in bona fide third party sources. Reference in directories of aviation companies is not significant coverage. Bongomatic 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This ultralight aircraft manufacturer is of international stature in its field and there should be an article on it. I think at this point it just needs some better references added. I will try to find some and add them. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of India's leading small aircraft manufacturers? Are you kidding? And a listing in Janes All the World’s Aircraft isn't good enough for you? C'mon. I'm all for deleting non-notable companies, but this goes a bit far. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Raj Hamsa appears to be a major player in Microlight/ultrlight aircraft - [34] refers to completion of its 1000th aircraft (and production of that number of aircraft does seem to imply some sort of notability. This webpage from the FIA refers to it being India's only microlight manufacturer in 2000. [35], [36] and [37] give details of there aircraft., while the X'Air has an entry in Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1999/2000 edition (p.550) giving specifications. [38] is another article on the X'Air, while [39] is from Flight International.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per other comments and refs have now been added by other users that show notability. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using the links that Nigel Ish provided, a quick Google search and a run though my own library turned up many useful references that show that this company is notable by the Wiki definition. I have added some of these to the article, along with a bit of text. I hope this will show that the article does not need deleting, but just a bit of improving. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Entertainment

[edit]
Dolphin Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads to me like pure advertising/PR. roux   08:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Center for Collective Intelligence

[edit]
MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable research group. I do not dispute that there are notable people who are affiliated with it, but this does not mean that notability is inherited. The organization has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, independent, secondary sources, it is but one of hundreds of research groups at a major research university. It likewise reads like an advertisement or resume rather than encyclopedia article. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect - with/to MIT – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whether merged and redirected or kept, this information should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thomas W. Malone. C'mon, it's the professor's research group. Research groups and centers are hardly ever notable, no matter the people in them and their work. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The question of when a research center gets an article is undecided. Clearly, when its a free-standing multi-departmental center with a building of its own and major publications and multiple faculty groups and some sort of permanent university presence it probably does (e.g. MIT AI Lab). Equally, when it's a department's or a professor's organizational gimmick for grants and publicity, then it isnt. There are more difficult cases in the middle, like this. (I don't think hardly ever is the right summary word.) At least initially, yes, it's an extension of Thomas Malone's research group. But other faculty and departments are involved also, there's very impressive co-sponsorship DGG (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply "Hardly ever" was, in this case, meant to describe groups formed around a single professor, of which there are usually dozens in every American research university. Quite a few of them have called themselves the center for something or the other at some time or another, and since the groups is usually formed around a prominent professor, can claim collaboration with many other departments, universities, etc. This is just part of academic life. Barring a sign that this center is bigger than a research group or a department (and many departments of great academic reputation nonetheless do not merit Wikipedia articles of their own), I don't think we should include it. RayAYang (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Googling fo the title got me hits that show that MIT CCI is not a just one prof's platform but has attracted support from several depts within MIT and other top-class academic institutions, e.g. Wharton Business School. OTOH this article does seem a bit premature, as there has not been time for it to publish significant results and for WP:RS to comment on them. Is there any way we can set up a timed AfD review to take place e.g. 6-12 months from now? --Philcha (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close; wrong venue. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine de Burgh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine de Burgh (edit | [[Talk:User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine de Burgh|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

spoof page by sockpuppet. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Brittle heaven has demonstrated that the subject easily passes WP:N. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jacková

[edit]
Jana Jacková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find material coverage of the subject (hits limited to game summaries, etc.). Top ranking is 2,423. Not in top 100 women ([40]. Unreferenced. Bongomatic 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the references? The ones I looked at (while I can't be sure) appeared to be game summaries and match listings--not "significant". Are you suggesting that every grandmaster (thousands) are notable? Does the "significant coverage in reliable sources" rule not apply? Bongomatic 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting that every grandmaster is notable, and the sources cover the information in the entry. Alternatively, we could merge/redirect to the List of chess grandmasters until there's more content to make an article with. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jana Jacková plays the first board for the Czech republic at the Dresden Olympiad in progress at the moment. Saying that that she isn't notable enough is plain stupid. Loosmark (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to insult anyone, I think. SyG (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that all grandmasters these days are notable - there are far too many of them. I think only about half of them have WP articles. FIDE started awarding the GM title in 1950, and by 1972 there were only 88 GMs. Now I think there are over 1000 (at least close to it). Bubba73 (talk), 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe we should initiate a discussion at WP:CHESS to have some rough guidelines about which grandmaster to include and which not ? At one time the threshold for notability was 2600 Elos (assuming no other notable aspects like writing books) but that is for male. What about female grandmasters ? Maybe having been in the top 100 ? SyG (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The two main arguments here are "arbitrary und unnecessary listing of suburbs" and "term used by reliable sources". There is no consensus, even with the clear number of !votes, which argument is to be considered more important; it is a term used by at least two sources cited in this discussion, but it lacks clear distinction from other articles. I closed it as no consensus for now, but merge/redirect to existing articles might be a good idea. SoWhy 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South-eastern Sydney

[edit]
South-eastern Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, and for me, a supposed local of this area, completely unknown. The area this article claims for SE Sydney is an area that is and has always been the core of the Eastern Suburbs, as that article is quick to state. I have serious doubts about this region's existence, and if it indeed is esoterically used somewhere, its notability and our ability to maintain it. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference I perceive in your argument is a capital E. These are reliable sources that demonstrate common usage of the term. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow your argument. Sydney is southwards? Of what? And who is talking about a template? We are discussing an article. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map here in the article is also up for deletion. Although if South-eastern Sydney is determined to be a useful and encyclopedic designation (and article title) I think the template (map) would make sense to keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are sources, even if they are mostly primary, but there is no reason to delete solely based on the quality of the sources (sources can be primary and still reliable, for example for details like tracklists or contributors to the album). The article is also not speculating on details not sources (like release date), so it is not WP:CRYSTAL and the keep votes argue correctly that future albums do not have to have all information already available to be kept. SoWhy 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Lies I Sire

[edit]
For Lies I Sire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future album that is crystal balling. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The only problem is that we don't know the exact release date. But the most important criteria are met. We know the title of the album so it can be properly located and there's more than a name and tracklisting there which means it's more than simple crystalballery. =- Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with past speaker (Mgm). It's enough information to verify that it's a future studio album by a wellknown band with all their past albums featured on Wikipedia. It's relatively soon to be released (within a year) and information about the tracks as well as a member's opinion on it is written into the article. I would say that's more than enough. References that include their official website is more than enough to show it's not a crystal ball. - Aki (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only sources are primary. Wait until there's more to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the release date (or lack of) was published in a secondary source, then I would have said keep, but this is just too thin. It can be recreated later when/if the album is released or someone publishes something useful to say about it. This isn't about crystalball (which doesn't apply here), this is about the inability to verify through reliable sources, which is impossible at this time. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this article should be kept, because it has been proven to be an upcoming album by a band that is notable and has been notable for quite some time. The album For Lies I Sire is being much anticipated among the metal community. The release date is set for 2009, and that is all the information the public has about when this album will release. So if this page was to be deleted, it should not be because of the information supplied for the release date. However, this page could definitely use some additional sources. Another thing is this: the page is definitely not disorganized, cacophonous trash like what usually shows up in the speedy deletion bin. It sure isn't spam. BTC 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali O'Shea

[edit]
Ali O'Shea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article for this fictional character of the soap opera Fair City has no references in secondary sources whatsoever, and therefore I don't believe it meets any criteria for notability. I'd suggest a merge, but as there's nothing cited in Reliable sources, I don't think there's anything to be merged. Raven1977 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn for all articles. I'll pursue merge/redirect discussions instead. Please someone feel free to close this; I don't know how or I'd do it myself. Thanks. Raven1977 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following additional characters because they all have the same problem: Lack of secondary sources, therefore no evidence of meeting notability criteria:
Carol Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dermot Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dolores Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barry O'Hanlon (Fair City character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anne-Marie Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bob Charles (Fair City character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brendan Daly (Fair City character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christy Phelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cleo Cullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damien Halpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dean Dowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geraldine Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominic Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frances McGuigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gina Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heather Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jo Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kylie Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leo Dowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malachy Costello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark Halpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Niamh Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orla Kirwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul Brennan (Fair City character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ray O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renee Phelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rita Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robin Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rory Goff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah O'Leary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seamus McAleer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suzanne Halpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Una Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ursula Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yvonne Gleeson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tracy Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Raven1977 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next time, please nominate in smaller batches. It takes far too much time to go through every entry you nominated here and that might either put people off or lead to uninformed decisions. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close on the grounds that, as noted by MacGyverMagic, this is just too big a batch nomination. In addition, it has been noted that two of the batched nominations are already subject to current AFD discussion. It may well be that, especially given this TV show's status as award-winning (per the article) any number of these characters -- or even all of them -- may well be notable enough in their particular market to warrant individual articles. But as presented I agree the danger here is WP:OSTRICH may occur. No prejudice against renomination and I'm not saying the whole lot need to be done one at a time, but at least give us batches of 10 so it's easier to go through them and make sure that the Irish soap opera equivalent of James T. Kirk hasn't been snuck in here. At the very least a renom is needed to remove the duplicated AFDs. 23skidoo (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and try to sort out the more significant characters, & improve those articles; and meanwhile merge the others to a list with one paragraph descriptions. This is asserted to be the most important soap opera in Ireland, so some of the characters may be notable--but all of them would be worth a redirect at the very least. No reason given why a redirect or merge would be unsuitable. I point out that while verifiable content requires sources, it doesn't require third party sources or secondary sources for material that can be derived from the show itself without OR./ DGG (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question None of the above articles have any sources, except in certain cases the website for the television show is listed. Since that was the case, I didn't think there would be a problem batching them together like this. I disagree that these articles don't need secondary sources, according to the notability criteria, all articles need secondary, reliable sources in order to establish notability. I saw the fiction proposal, but it's not guideline status yet, so I think the general notability guidelines apply here, yes? My reason given why a merge is unsuitable is because there's no verifiable content in my opinion to be merged, since there's no citations. I have no problem with a redirect, but I have no faith that if I had simply done that, those redirects would stay; which is why I brought them here. Besides that, the question becomes where to redirect? There's a list article for the characters, storylines article and of course an article for the show itself. But if people don't feel comfortable discussing a list of nominations together (I thought batch noms were preferred to nominating each one separately??), then feel free to close this, and I'll start over. Raven1977 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close — I have to side with the above comments; it's just too big a bundle. At the least they should be split up into smaller groups and renominated as such. This is also tl;dr for users and too long for users to sift through every article to see if they all should be deleted. MuZemike (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuil (unit)

[edit]
Cuil (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the search engine Cuil has been written about in the New York Times and elsewhere, this usage seems to be made up and limited to a few blogs. A Google search shows 9 results, unrestricted search shows 42, including Wikipedia. LovesMacs (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Emmerich

[edit]
Klaus Emmerich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, especially in the English-speaking world. The article is merely the report of one incident. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I believe the article should be given a chance, according to the German WP he has had a lenghty career as a foreign correspondent, and has published a dozen books. Punkmorten (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The German Wikipedia indicates he's done more than just be noteworthy for the one US election event. Also, notability does not depend on location or language. The English-speaking Wikipedia (and indeed all other editions) have an international character. Since international sources are allowed, he'd be just as notable in Germany or Austria as he is in the UK, Australia or the US. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were to give more information about him I might vote to keep too. As it is it does not say why anyone should care what a retired Austrian journalist said about the President of the United States; any more than we would care about, for instance, what a retired journalist in Mexico said about the Queen of England. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not assert its subject's notability. It says he is known in North America but only cites a German magazine. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the former editor-in-chief of ORF news,[41], which, according to reliably sourced content in its wikipedia article, is "the dominant player in the Austrian broadcast media". He doesn't have to be known in North America or anywhere else in the anglosphere to be notable - English is the language in which English Wikipedia is written, not the language its subjects have to speak or write in to be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the second reference. That's an improvement. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please consider the AfD withdrawn. When I posted it the article only said he was a retired journalist. Now his importance is made clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Downtime#Planning.  Sandstein  20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled downtime

[edit]
Scheduled downtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • hold your horses - I googled "planned downtime" and got 78,100 hits while "scheduled downtime" rec. 278,000. This subject might go into the downtime article, I confess, but that article seems much more generic. This article I hope eventually has more to do with Reliability engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgorpster (talk • contribs) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. The article's citations and the ghits found by Sirgorpster establish notability. Just looking at the title I could not understand why this article appears at AfD. The article has huge potential for development, e.g.: how to decide whether planned maintenance is more efficient than waiting for things to fail (among other things this is a big topic in the maintenance of roads and associated items such as lighting); in computers, hardware and software developments aimed at 24-7 operation; strategic effects of planned refits on major military units such as aircraft carriers or nuclear subs. Links to Downtime#Planning would be useful, but a merge would be premature. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - topic is important and belongs to both maintenance and downtime, but in current state content is too weak and doesn't warrant an article. Philcha is correct in saying that if the article would get more developed and expanded from the current stub it would be standing on its own and not only be a part of another topic. MaxVT (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lasin, Burma

[edit]
Lasin, Burma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability, GEOnet Names Server is the single source for this article. No content, just name and coordinates. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (A1/A3). Even though I don't believe notability is an issue with geographical locations, I do believe that there's too little content and context to sustain the article. I have not been able to find any information to use for expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in WP:NOT does it state anything about atlases?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trickery superman punch

[edit]
Trickery superman punch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes a method of punching someone. It is not sourced. I will say that I have studied martial arts myself and I am aware that this move exists - I first saw Sam Greco use it in the mid-1990s - but I wouldn't think that the move had a name, nor that the name would be 'Trickery superman punch'. I would also not think that it were a notable enough concept to be given its own page in an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as failing WP:V. No sources available and unverifiable material cannot remain on Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love HMS: Charm School

[edit]
I Love HMS: Charm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. No references can be found online for either this webshow or its "channel": Spin Network. Article has been speedily deleted twice before and was prod'ed this time. The author removed the prod without comment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The show was reported confidential and was only made as a serious parody of other shows.
  2. The show had not earned very good ratings
  3. and had not gained such popularity over the season.
  4. As a result there is no sources linked to this show. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Notability and unverifiable to say the least. ALso, per above comments. HairyPerry 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about a non-existing show, or at least one that can not be verified. No matter how low the ratings, if this show was actually released and ran, there should be some mention on google, which other than this page, there isn't. Even if it did exist, the fact that there is no evidence of its existance indicates that it is not notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's snowing. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaucho theory

[edit]
Gaucho theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A meme from reddit that fails WP:N/WP:WEB. This meme was started by one guy's comment, and has not gained a wide following (yet). There are three different references: a link to a reddit.com (social media site) submission, and two references to the background story of where the comment that started this meme came from. Delete, but without prejudice to recreation if the meme becomes popular enough. Oh, and um, full disclosure: I'm a prolific redditor. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its gained the following, or at least recognition, of all of reddit. It's front paged. This definitely shouldn't go up for deletion. RyeGye24 (talk)
  • I'm Torn. While this certainly doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB, It might become notable later and a article will have to be created again, wasting all the hard work done on this one. Maybe we could delay the deletion by say a month when we'll have a better idea if it will expand into a fullblown internet meme, or fade into obscurity. -- Phiren (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the ...., I entered in a hangon tag in the main page, and then I was in the middle of writing a long justification on the talk page, and the article gets deleted right from under me! You can't even save the talk then, and all the work starting the page is gone. The deleter didn't even offer a valid reason, they gave vandalism, and the article is clearly not vandalism. =( I'm not saying this article needs to remain permanently but the idea that you can't even let something get started without open discussion is ridiculous authoritarian censorship. Wisehearted (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. It is an encyclopaedia, not a free web page hosting service for your discussion forum. Content here must be verifiable and not original research.
  • Clearly a worthy subject in need of its own Wiki page. None cane refute the importance of learning the Gaucho Theory, as it explains many, MANY questions. ???? Is now no longer relevant, freeing unknowing series of tube users from the misery of ignorance. Thank you Gaucho, O' mighty wise man from ye ol' towne of Reddit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.202.53 (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status of possible deletion of this page at the time of deletion was to delay the deletion by a month, but instead the page was deleted and locked. No valid reason was given. The page may have had one or two elements that could be constructed as jokes, but the large majority of it was completely true and well cited. The best reason for deleting it would have been notability, however this was not the reason that was given. Shinynew 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinynew (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I restored the page on advice from User:Elonka. I don't think it's a good idea to have an article about an evolving meme, but I don't really care if other people want to keep an eye on it. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Phiren and also too to keep the article for 1 month. The ??? - Profit! meme is well-established and documented elsewhere; however, Gaucho theory is still evolving and it might be quite notable now since it is a recent development that has been uncovered by the David Thorne phenomenon, but the theory could provide to be unsubstantiated after extensive peer-review. As a mildly prolific redditor, I would say it is better to keep it for the time that the pros and cons of the theory itself is debated. 142.157.122.237 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 142.157.122.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It isn't the place to document the previously undocumented. New theories do not belong here until they have been documented by named people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy outside of Wikipedia, first. Things do not belong here until after peer review has occurred. Unless you show that that has actually happened in this case, you do not make a case for keeping that actually holds water. By asserting that it isn't the case, you make a good case for deletion, in contrast. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree with the assertion that the topic has not been documented. A simple google search shows many pages referring to the meme. This entry may seem to be in a grey area in the article guidelines, but isn't the ultimate guidline to Ignore All Rules for the betterment of Wikipedia? Mydodger (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — Mydodger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Playing the IAR card rarely washes, in part because it's usually used as an excuse, as here. The betterment of Wikipedia involves making a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free from original research. To that end, there must be sources. I've told you to cite sources to make a solid case for keeping, with links to Wikipedia:citing sources, several times on this page, and yet you still haven't cited any. A nebulous claim that sources exist, somewhere, is not enough. Neither is excuse-making that this article should be an exception to the project's basic content policies. Cite sources! Show us the multiple reliable and independent sources that document this subject in depth. Excuse-making and irrelevant arguments won't wash, and will result in deletion. Your only arguments are sources. You know how to make a case. So do it. Produce sources. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seem like an obvious deletion to me - this meme is not even 24 hours old, and hasn't had a chance to become notable by any definition of the word. Give it some time, and if the meme sticks (questionable, but possible), we can revisit it. Rm999 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The world of memes does not have such necessary waiting periods for 'sticking'. It is clear to all involved that the meme has stuck. Memes come from a portion of the psyche common to the meme-aware-- this one, in particular, fills a hole in that thought space, this hole can never be reopened. Its age it irrelevent. 70.71.195.225 (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 70.71.195.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The fact that it hasn't been properly documented by named people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy is, though. Unless you can show that this is the case, by citing sources, you do not make an argument for keeping that actually holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with the main article for the ??? / Profit meme. I see no reason to delete it, for a legitimate explanation to a meme. Seriously, someone give me a negative effect having this article is having on Wikipedia. You're paying hardly anything to host maybe a kilobyte of text, I'd be happy to make a $5 donation to cover that if it makes you feel any better. Anyways, if you're going to delete it, just add it to the existing article on the meme. dead (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this blatantly fails WP:NOTABILITY. The author can create this on some other site, perhaps one that devotes its pages to memes. DigitalC (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not satisfy WP:N and also violates WP:NOT#NEWS, as a "theory" that is one day old. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philisophically Ramble. Who's to say this is old? Wikipedia is but an infant comapred to humanity, humanity but an infant compared to the earth, the earth an infant compared to the stars. You can quote all the policies and guidelines you wish, but you choose to neglect the simple fact that the Gaucho theory, though by your accounts subjectively young, has fufilled a hole in the sub/unconscious minds of the internet-meme-aware barren since the relevent episode of South Park first aired. The Gaucho theory, all but instantly, has become notable, perhaps not by your theories of notablity, forged in the dark ages of months and years ago-- but notable. The desire to keep anything remotely humourous off of this website is a symptom of the unwarrented sense of self-importance experienced by wikipedia editors. Do not use this profound, insightful meme-- which sums up the entire nature of memes-- as an outlet for your wiki-rage. Whether your codified 'guidelines' disagree or not, literally, by volume of awareness and by relevence this theory is notable. Do not let your wiki-blindness stand in the way of the obvious answer. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. SCVirus (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP has to keep up its standards or else joke entries would not be funny. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. WillOakland (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Doesn't belong here; belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Segregationist, eh? Just because you see this subsection of internet culture in such a flat way, does not mean there is not greater, relevent meaning. 70.71.195.225 (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reason other than bigotry? Grhm01 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — Grhm01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I don't feel I have to respond to people who registered or posted only on this topic and obviously haven't read the relevant policies, but I guess I will. I'm a redditor myself--I was there (sort of) when ElGaucho made his comment. Something someone on the web made up one day is not necessarily important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if that encyclopedia is web-based. Otherwise, what's to stop other memes from making it to Wikipedia? Pretty soon, Wikipedia will be full of articles about random memes that no one's ever heard of. Both of you, anon and Grhm01, have simply called me names without offering any explanation for why your position is better. It doesn't even make sense to say that I view something in a "flat way"--that statement is devoid of meaning. And no, there is no greater, relevant meaning; that's the entire problem. The only meaning it has is on reddit, where it's not even particularly famous. Why don't we write up an article about reddit and digg's love for bacon? I can assure you that is far broader in scope than this stupid theory. Don't call me a bigot when you don't even bother to read the policies before choosing a side in the debate. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia has gone to hell from over deleting and the inability to tell content from vandalism. -- 66.91.62.114 (talk)
  • Delete I'm here to vote as requested by Reddit; too bad that I think this is nonsense. If it's a meme in 12 months time then maybe it would be worthy, for now it can stay on Encyclopedia Dramatica. bad_germ 09:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Phiren. We should give it a month-long trial period and if it still fails WP:NOTABILITY then, delete it. --24.16.61.196 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hello. I am new to the format of the AfD debate, but I had the initial impression that a consensus had to be reached within the broader community of contributors, and not only within WP moderators. As mentionned, one might be surprised by the sudden rise in attention to the Gaucho theory; however, the nature of the missing step leading to Profit! has been explored for a decade now, and Gaucho theory came to provide an elegant solution for this question. The validity of the theory is still matter of debate, but the impact of its applications makes it more notable than a mere news report (if I understand the WP:NOT#NEWS policy correctly). The tidiness of WP seems to be at the core of the raised objections for users more familiar to WP. Now, we must arrive to a consensus so it would seem a reasonable compromise to include Gaucho theory in the discussion of ??? - Profit!. 142.157.122.237 (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a few days. Pragmatically, trying to delete this now would be foolhardy. It's a developing meme and removing it will only increase the fervor of its contributors. Let's all just let the article sit for a few days and see what happens. If the idea fails to take off (which it likely will), then go ahead and delete the article. I'll endorse the deletion. But at this exact moment, it's noteworthy. On Monday it probably won't be. Delete it then. 153.108.64.1 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proper course of action, in accordance with our Wikipedia:No original research policy, was to wait those few days before creating an article in the first place. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Do not come here as a means of documenting the heretofore undocumented. Please use alternative outlets, of which there are many, for that. Only come to Wikipedia with things after they have become properly documented, by reliable sources who have performed peer review and fact checking, and become part of the general, documented, corpus of human knowledge. Your only convincing argument here would be to cite sources demonstrating that that has already happened. The argument that you actually are using holds no water here at all, and indeed (by arguing that it hasn't happened) is a strong argument for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This idea has been around and very popular for a long time. It is sad to think that we would delete something simply because it is obscure. It exists, so it should have a right to be documented - and just because you don't understand it or have never witnessed it, does not give you any right to remove it. 78.105.167.5 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 78.105.167.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. It provides information and it is interesting (at least to some people). That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. TheAsocialApe (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This encyclopaedia requires that the information be verifiable and not original research. Please make an argument that actually has some basis in our policies and guidelines, because your current argument holds no water at all. The interest that people have in a subject forms no part of our content policies or article inclusion criteria. Notability is not subjective. Your only effective argument is citing sources, to show that our primary notability criterion is satisfied. Do that. Failure to do so will result in deletion, however much you argue about rights to be documented, interest, fame, or other things that have no relevance to our policies and guidelines. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Dear reddit: I understand you are trying to be like 4chan and make your own meme. But this is pathetic and stupid. Take a step back for a moment and look at what you are trying to do here. You just want to be "in" on something. In two years you'll realize how pathetic this whole thing was. You are like those screaming 10 year old girls watching American Idol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.131 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have Cuil Theory as a meme; why are we trying to make another one?
  • Strong delete strongly in the stongest possible strongest terms. Did I say I !vote strong delete? ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Uncle G's comments passim above. We aren't here to help publicise newly-invented memes, however many SPAs Reddit sends here to support them. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There is not a word in the English language to describe just how badly this page should be deleted from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a reddit-only minor meme. Anyway, it's incorrect: the second-to-last step is always ???. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is currently a Reddit article asking people to "help save this page from deletion": article atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Heavily related to Profit meme and should be discussed there. --Macrowiz (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, article is just an inside joke on Reddit, not notable. Peaceduck (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per just about every delete vote so far. This meme is not widely followed, and fails WP:WEB. — neuro(talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As nom, I'm already for delete obviously, but would you look at that, there's a policy for this sort of thing I didn't even know existed: WP:MADEUP. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I checked the math myself and referenced it to my calculus professor. It works, therefore this theory is verifiable. Darlyn Perez (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? First, there is no math in the theory, so there is nothing to check with a calculus professor. Second, WP:V requires verification by published reliable sources, not something that you thought through yourself or asked somebody's opinion about. Third, the subject has to be notable as defined by WP:N, which means coverage by independent published reliable sources. Moreover, per WP:NOT#NEWS such coverage needs to be spread over a sufficiently long period of time. None of these conditions are satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article. Scroll down. There's a formula that has been verified by my calculus professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.209.168 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this "formula", don't you: . Damn, that is some fine math. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree, the "formula" is complete nonsense. I was attempting sarcasm. Nsk92 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Goddard

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

Notability guidelines not met. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He is a radio personality with two nationally broadcasted, syndicated radio shows. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reliable sources can be found for this individual, then he is non-notable. The article does not address why Steve Goddard merits inclusion on Wikipedia. He has not received significant, third-party sources as seen in this Google News search and this Google News Archive search. None of the results on this page are related to Steve Goddard the DJ. The Steve Goddards in the article found in Google News include a wide assortment of people, including a newspaper reporter, the North American Chairman of Wella and Sebastian, a curator at KU's Spencer Museum of Art, a lawyer, and an athlete. None of them mention a DJ. Furthermore, his two "nationally broadcasted" shows don't seem to be notable either. A search for sources about the two shows (Goddard's Gold and The 70s With Steve Goddard) returns only links from the radio's station's website or press releases. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LexisNexis searches didn't turn up anything besides radio and club-listings. References from non-indenpendent sources are okay to assert non-controversial stuff, but notability has to be established first. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux internal commands

[edit]
Linux internal commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an inaccurate summary of many articles already found on Wikipedia. Examples: shell (computing), and there is nothing internal about the commands as they were, for quite some time, the main way to use a unix-like system. Psbsub (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This info already exists in several places, and the title of the article isn't something people would search for.
  • Delete - I don't believe that this is a valid article title. The article tries to describe the fact that some commands are built into the shell, while others are not. However, there is more than one shell available for Linux, and the question of which commands are internal and which are external is much deeper than what we have written here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even wrong. Shells have internal commands (a topic for shell (computing)), but that has nothing to do with Linux, so this is not even a reasonable name for a redirect. --Itub (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not even sure what does the general term "linux commands" stands for exactly, as intended by the article. List of utility names? File operations supported by the shell? Names of all possible applications? MaxVT (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Vanessa Hudgens discography - non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens singles

[edit]
Vanessa Hudgens singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The info on the singles can already be found on the articles for her cds / i couldn't find any other major artists that had pages for their singles Edgehead5150 04:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball, improper AfD, non admin closure. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies

[edit]
List of universities in the Canadian Prairies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list isn't necessary as there are lists for each of the provinces listed on this list. It's duplication, and this list should be deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the duplicate lists you are talking about. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of universities in Alberta, List of universities in Manitoba, etc. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just undid them. Please read the FLC statement for this article to know why I merged them together. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Not a duplicate; the other lists were merged/redirected into this one. Nominator undid the merges. This is currently a featured list candidate by a prolific featured content contributor. The rationale for the merge was fully explained at FLC. Top quality content shouldn't be subjected to this treatment. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator cites irrelevant points such as users' nationality to back up his assertions, and additionally, there has been consensus by the main contributor and on the Featured Topic Candidacy page to merge those articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[42] [43] [44] [45] See these edits by nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb97 and Durova are both Americans, and shouldn't be allowed to say speedy keep. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg, your reasoning is about on the 2nd to bottom level. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even noticed that I also said speedy keep, Me? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 04:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 - It's an image, not policy. SRE - I saw. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me, Why are you dividing users by nationality. As Dabomb said, this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 04:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To Me-123567) I never said that it was a policy. I was just saying that your reasoning is irrelevant, and will probably be disregarded as such by the closing admin of this AfD and the FLC directors on the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted per G3 by User:Gwen Gale. Non-admin close.. ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo OS

[edit]
Apollo OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; the only references are self-published. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. What about MikeOS, Visopsys and the rest of other 'hobby' OSes out there? Anyway, Wikipedia sux, if the first thing I get on my Talk Page since July is an Afd, so be it. Oh, and it's much better than the aforementioned articles; and from a neutral point of view, nothing seems to be wrong with it. Interest has been raised about Apollo a while now, it seems right to have an article like the others. NoKindOfName (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources. If the article is correct about the status of the project, there won't be any for a while. WillOakland (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the OS is still in testing and not being used, unlike the entries mentioned by the article creator. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy redirect to Childbirth#Pain. Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain in labor

[edit]
Pain in labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Brooklyn

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
New Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep on the grounds this passed AFD with a KEEP DECISION only a month ago with most if not all of the original nominator's concerns addressed. Articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time in order to get a desired result. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was not involved with the prior AfD, but I am not persuaded by any of the arguments for keep in the prior one. An IMDb entry does not confer notability in itself, and I don't see any other notable sources or participants. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has not deteriorated since the last AFD, nor are there any new compelling reasons to delete this. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical thinker

[edit]
Clinical thinker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mortal Kombat vs. DC universe. MBisanz talk 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark kahn

[edit]
Dark kahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is definitely not worthy of its own article. It's poorly-written, unsourced, in-universe, contains spoilers, and is more of a rush to be the first to post information about the new Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe game on Wiki than an attempt to contribute anything remotely encyclopedic. sixtynine • spill it • 03:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I played the game, beat it, learned all i could about Dark Kahn, and you insult my article. Most video game pages have spoilers and people come here to learn, if people want to know about Dark Kahn, they are going to get hit with spoilers because he's only in this one game there is proof and I myself donated a picture to Wikipedia of him. If you don't like the article, edit it, that's what everyone else does, plus I waited a few days after beating the game to make that article, because no one else did. Riverstinson

  • Comment Nobody's disputing the fact that he's in the game, but since it's a minor character that likely will not appear again in MK canon, any information could have instead gone into the Shao Kahn article, the main MK/DC page, or the minor MK characters page. Plus, the game is not even a week old, so is it really necessary to go posting (unsourced) character endings just yet? Wiki is not a game guide. The lone source itself is fairly weak, as it does not go into any real detail about who Dark Kahn is or what he does. sixtynine • spill it • 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing personal. Just that the article fails to meet guidelines including WP:N and WP:V because of a lack of reliable third-party sources. The article only has a trivial mention in one review, which isn't really enough to verify anything substantial or show this article is notable. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Shuttles

[edit]
UCI Shuttles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined prod; Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How is this article an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory? I object to the deletion of this article and I am unclear of the issue with this article and would like communication in order to edit the article to resolve this issue. I looked deeply into the article I posted and do not see how it is an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory. Thank you. --Abeier (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- I edited the article due to Reyk's point. The article was not designed to be a bus table but I understand where you are coming from. The article no longer addresses times and stops but just the encyclopedia side of things. I got my inspiration from the UCSD Shuttles wiki page and did not think any thing of it. You make a valid point. Article should be acceptable now.--Abeier (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any bus route articles on AFD since I started my break over a year ago. Can anyone share any more recent precedents? - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A university bus service? Every large enough university runs one, just as they run a garbage collection service, and a telephone system, and water pipes, and not a single one of any of them are notable. Universities have web sites for this sort of extremely local information. A good guide is that if it would not be of interest to anyone not at the university, it isnt notable. This is straight-out spam, as shown by the wording "Please present the driver with a valid UCI ID to board the shuttle." or "ARC patrons who park in the CT Lot should use this shuttle". DGG (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example UCSD Shuttles --70.42.125.75 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - and this example is marked with the "notability" template as well. The article is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory, but it is simply not notable. MaxVT (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 by Gwen Gale, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Uncommon: The Very Best of Jewel

[edit]
Life Uncommon: The Very Best of Jewel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, no info on Google Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy redirect NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If_You_Want_Blood_(You've_Got_It)_(album)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
If_You_Want_Blood_(You've_Got_It)_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplicate of another, more robust article on the same album. ExampleOfHumanBeing (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hill (teacher)

[edit]
Derek Hill (teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does assert that the subject has won 'teacher of the year 2008' in his region, meaning that the article does assert notability. However, the article appears to be stream-of-consciousness-about-something-from-school with no encyclopedic value. This article is unsalvageable, even if the subject is notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note also that Good Olfactory has restored this page with the intention that it go through a full 5-day AfD. The creator keeps on recreating the page, implicitly indicating a challenge to the speedy criterion. And like I said, the article does assert notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is about a teacher who has won an "regional" award, what else has he done to become notable if the award is it then this article should be speedily deleted. Couldn't find nothing on various search engines, I wouldn't even waste time inproving this article for the simple fact that this teacher is not at all notable except for a "regional" award, no improvements needed, just DELETE! HairyPerry 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The regional award is probably enough to put off an A7 speedy, but not enough to save the article. And the author's repeated recreation of a deleted article without going through WP:DRV is problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:MADEUP. GlassCobra 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Pong

[edit]
Irish Pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is unsourced and unverifiable. It appears to be something-made-up-one-day. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would like to tell you why I wrote the article on Irish Pong, and why I would urge you to reconsider your nomination. Irish Pong, as stated in the article, has generated a huge following in the schools throughout the town that I live in, and even some surrounding areas (i.e. Westlake Village). It may seem strange and almost trivial to you, but the players of this game have achieved an almost celebrity status at my school as a result of Irish Pong becoming so popular. Irish Pong deserves the recoginition that my article would provide. Indeed, it seems as though I am not the only person who feels this way: Talk:Irish Pong
"Irish pong is a completely legitimate article. I personally have played the game. This article should not be deleted under any circumstances because Irish Pong serves a beacon of hope for anyone who is in need of friends, relaxation, or just some good old fashioned fun. With this article on the web, not only do the lives of countless individuals become improved, but also wikipedia will become in my eyes and the lives of others a reasonable source for quality information. At my school, wikipedia has been censored due to its lack of cogent information. I'd like to change that. By allowing this article, you, yes YOU wikipedia, improve your status quo considerably. In conclusion, the article "Irish Pong" should not be deleted from wikipedia because it not only could create a social habitat for countless nerds looking for something to do, but it could also help wikipedia. ˜˜˜˜Dominick Gordon"
IRISHPONG 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Trevor McReyolds[reply]
The above message was addressed to me by the article's author, who is a Wiki-novice. I'm transplanting it here and re-formatting it as a 'keep' argument, because I believe that's what he would want. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.71.149 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — 216.175.71.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Electric splinter

[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete. Jac16888 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article ought to be speedied per WP:SNOW. This is a dictionary definition, unsourced and unverifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Block user as well. Pure, unabashed vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Thingg. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pauze

[edit]
DJ Pauze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Article is about a non-notable DJ. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond promotional/sales sites and Myspace sites. I cannot find evidence that musician meets WP:BIO or WP:BAND. TN‑X-Man 02:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roopaning

[edit]
Roopaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article crying out for speedy deletion. This is a dictionary definition, and an unsourced one at that. It may constitute an attack on someone known as 'Roopan'. The article is orphaned and unverifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G3 by Thingg. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flubby Thing

[edit]
Flubby Thing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Childish hoax. Borderline vandalism. At best, there are no sources (other than the self-reference). Richard Cavell (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Heckler & Koch HK21. Unsourced (and very badly written) content should not be merged, although this can be done from the history with the respective improvements.  Sandstein  20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HK GR9C

[edit]
HK GR9C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Um...Unremarkable Gun? No references, "the weapon doesn't have a name" and uses of "unlikely" and generally the writer isn't even sure what the gun is. Dengero (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kill Artist

[edit]
The Kill Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I (think) this is a book, and there is no references, no authors, no directors or artists (if it is a movie). And notability couldn't even be asserted because the name is too common to search for in Google. Dengero (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete author consent to delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Dam Brewing Company

[edit]
Boulder Dam Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable brewing company. My speedy deletion tag was removed for a specious reason. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that COI is not a valid reason for deletion.- Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But failure to fit in to WP:CORP is. --Kickstart70TC 03:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google results yields at least two independent sources that discuss the place which would address the issue of the current referencing. Apparently, this place is a restaurant too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent sources available. The restaurant/brewery is used as a local museum for artifacts from the building of the Hoover Dam. It has been recognized by several magazines as a big attraction in the area. Gr0ff (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which sources are you referring to? When I searched google, the only thing I found that meeting the references criteria was this, an article in Las Vegas Review-Journal. The other reviews on google were from a review website that anyone could submit to, and the two links on the article itself are from the brewery's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's some print sources we're missing. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the onus is on those arguing to keep to provide those sources- not just assert they exist and leave it at that. I'm quite happy to change my mind, but I need to be convinced first. Reyk YO! 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search and found nothing in the way of reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GC Tooth Mousse

[edit]
GC Tooth Mousse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP, google search turns up wikipedia first, followed by sales sites. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm A Teacher, Get Me Out of Here

[edit]
I'm A Teacher, Get Me Out of Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no reliable sources - hoax? D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated above. I don't understand why this has been relisted rather than closed as a keep - the nominator's argument has been refuted and the other delete comment has no grounding in policy or guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has clearly been showed, I don't even think this should be an AFD because this article passes everything that an article must have. Plus, an article for the author can always be made so the delete comment from above is irrefutable. HairyPerry 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medizym

[edit]
Medizym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dietary supplement. No reliable secondary sources available. Wikipedia is not for snake-oil ads. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopie

[edit]
Hoopie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a mix between dicdef and unverifiable info. Wizardman 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wizardman (nom) pretty much says it all. Dicdef, slang, WP is not Urban Dictionary. DavidWS (contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Word Detective, which is mentioned as a source and reliable in my experience says: "Hoopie as a derogatory term for natives of West Virginia is, according to the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE), in widespread use in eastern Ohio as well as in southwestern PA. Regional and state rivalries are often expressed in such terms, of course." It's not unverifiable, but still a a dicdef without any chance of expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Center of New York City

[edit]
Zen Center of New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted as advert, recreated slightly better but still rather advert-oriented. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete - The NY Times "reference" was a mention that an artistic event was taking place there. Google turned up no other secondary non-trivial sources. Cleaned up the article and removed some of the POV for good measure, but something is telling me that this isn't notable after all. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student and Administrative Services Building

[edit]
Student and Administrative Services Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst I'm sure this is of interest to the university, there is no claim or indication in the article as to why this construction project (or the final product) is notable. Just being there is not a reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nuttah (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 2

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

Console game. Low on info. Crystal ball gazing. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vethathiri Maharishi

[edit]
Vethathiri Maharishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable religious leader. No reliable sources to establish notablility. Also, written like an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are more sources avaialable from a Google News search [57], and an obituary in a major newspaper such as The Hindu is in fact one of the best type of sources for establishing notability – its existence means that the editorial judgement of the newspaper was that the person is notable enough to warrant an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an 'staff writer'-written obituary in a reasonably large newspaper means that people independent from the subject determined him to be an important figure, so I agree with with Phil that notability is established. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda - In the Himalayas

[edit]
Ananda - In the Himalayas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization, no reliable sources, and written like an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRX Team

[edit]
SRX Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luluwah bint Abdulaziz Al Saud

[edit]
Luluwah bint Abdulaziz Al Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable on her own DimaG (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Already Deleted. Already deleted (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notoirous nine

[edit]
Notoirous nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another article that demonstrates the need for a speedy deletion criterion 'G13: Some kids mucking around'. This group is not verifiable, and there is no source given for this information. The whole thing is a hoax. The article appears to be inspired by a sketch from Chappelle's Show. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Thingg. (non admin closure) - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Forzani

[edit]
Johnny Forzani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax, or some-kid-mucking-around. Wikipedia has an article on John Forzani, who was born much earlier than this article's subject. The article's content is not verifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Survivor: Vanuatu. Boldly redirected. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twila Tanner

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Twila Tanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable survivor contestant who fails WP:1E. Tavix (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as almost-certain hoax, WP:SNOW. Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Wan de Loitte

[edit]
Vanessa Wan de Loitte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced bio. Searching Google for the name alone, or with anthropologist or Burkina Faso throws up nothing relevant. The University of Waterloo search page also returns no results for a supposed professor there. Unless somebody can provide reliable sources, I think this is nothing but a hoax. GraemeL (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this is either a hoax or the least notable professor ever. The lack of any results for a Google, ISI Thompson, Google Scholar, and Waterloo search make this seem improbable at best. Bfigura (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the evidence of a hoax suggested above, I can find nothing on Amazon, Google Scholar, or Google Books suggesting the existence of the memoirs she supposedly published in 1993. Is WP:HOAX sufficient grounds for a speedy deletion? RJC TalkContribs 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.