Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 3 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator no longer supports deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable Mrmcdonnell (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

comment- I know its not by itself notable, but it certainly makes notability easier to prove. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rickrolling. MBisanz 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable "parody" of Rickrolling. None of the sources consists of substantial coverage at all, and are mostly Urban Dictionary, YouTube itself, or the like. Was a prod, but I could easily see this being contested by someone with "OMG HOW COULD YOU BALEET THIS MCROLL IS SO NOTABLE YOU SUCK!" or somesuch. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Rickroll - Non notable internet parody. However, if reliable sources are found, I'll be willing to change my !vote. Xclamation point 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's nothing here that would be mergeable; anyone who feels that it'd be a good search term can feel free to redirect. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Green (property developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a minor character in the 2007 Labour party donation scandal. This separate article has no additional information on him - indeed no information at all that is not in the article title. Clearly non-notable. Therefore I suggest delete and replace with a redirect to 2007 Labour party donation scandal Smerus (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Sources exist for the article, if they are reliable or not is something that should be discussed in the talk page. If these sources aren't, then it can be rediscussed in a few months. I'm not going to check if the sources are reliable or not, but given a lack of rebuttal it's a no consensus. I played it, i heard of it, isn't a reason for keeping. Secret 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unofficial schoolyard game, no actual sources to speak of. Nothing but a huge list of rules, no established notability or history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference if you get a thousand affidavits from Australians who have played it, without reliable sources you can't put stuff in Knowledge. dramatic (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of that (it is one of our pillars, after all). I was noting it is an influential part of people's lives and as such I am positive there are a number of sources discussing it. +Hexagon1 10:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well unless we find those references, there seems to be nothing much to differentiate it from Four Square (which is what I played at school) other than the size of the ball, in which case there is no need for this article. And Four square has at least some sources. (I was surprised to see that it has a professional league, but then there is probably a professional league for tiddly winks somewhere.) dramatic (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Touché. I retain my keep vote, per Hpfan9374's excellent points. +Hexagon1 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Firstly, TenPoundHammer, I understand why you would nominate it for deletion, I'll try to address your concerns.
    • "unofficial schoolyard game" - But what is an official schoolyard game? Australian handball could also be classified as a street game.
    • "no actual sources" - There is one source clearly listed on the bottom of the article, a news article in the first edition of Excitement Machine Magazine written by Tristan Mahoney and Matt Salleh, that is accessible here. Furthermore, I have recently seen a Logie Award-winning, Australian television mockumentary series, distributed internationally, Summer Heights High which features Australian handball. This could be the primary focus of an "Impact on popular culture" section, for example. However, I will admit, there aren't many online references. I will go to the library to find some written materials at a later date.
    • "Nothing but a huge list of rules" - Agreed. The article needs to be completely rewritten, not deleted, with template, cleanup-rewrite and categorized into category Knowledge articles needing rewrite.
    • "no established notability or history" - Notability will come as sources with reliable sources. The sport was 2007 TV Fugly Award Nominee for "New “Sports” to broadcast on TV". The Courier-Mail published a story Fun police go too far in which they received reports that schools are banning students from playing handball, among performing other schoolyard activities. This relates to your first concern "unofficial schoolyard game" in which The Courier-Mail has considered it a schoolyard game or activity. In 2003 and half a decade later in 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald made reference to Australian handball in two news articles, Top of the class and Kids who care. They stated that the game as a new craze in 2003, and in 2008 stated that students were continuing to play Australian handball. This asserts and references a half-decade of history, however there are original research claims that suggest the game has been in existence for at least two decades. Diabetes South Australia has ranked Australian handball fourth in their Top 5 School Yard Games, here. The game has also inspired a short story, My Almost Deadly Handball Experience, written by Mike W of Temple Christian College. Importantly the South Australian Government has issued a document, Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Social Development, in which the author cites Australian handball as a method of fostering social competencies in young children. Aswell, Australian handball has inspired artworks, with the names of various Australian handball moves, Present Gift, Death Rally, Body Lob and Does’nt Make It, Does’nt Count being used as titles of art work at The Kings Artist Run Initiative. Further references, Ande Bunbury Architects, Museum of Victoria Play & Folklore, Jindalee State School Wish List, Coomoora Primary School Newsletter #5108 and Learning Sequence.
In conclusion, pending a "kept" decision, I will completely change the articles structure to comply with other schoolyard games, verify all claims with reliable references and remove all original research, after a visit to the library. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The key thing would be that you will have to demonstrate that it is a completely different game from Four square (given that there are Australian regional rules for four square documented). That looks unlikely, comparing the articles. If handball is merely an Australian name for Four square, then this article needs to be deleted and replaced with a redirect, and the Four square article needs to mention the localised name. dramatic (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Diabetes South Australia states that:
either played against a wall (for two players) or in 4 squares (4 players). Bounce the ball to the wall or to one of the 4 squares and back again. Use points for the wall and for 4 squares players shift from King, Queen, Jack and Joker.
Although brief, it states that the game uses positions "King, Queen, Jack and Joker", unlike four square and that the player must bounce the ball to their square, then an "one of the 4 squares and back again". In four square, the player do not bounce the ball to their square first, and instead directly 'hit' the ball into one of the other three squares. I believe their is written material of the rules in playground and schoolyard games books at my library, I will check it out in the near future. Cheers! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to Battle Trolls. MBisanz 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulls-Eye Troll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't verify existence in gsearch or gnews. Either a hoax or non-notable product. Prod contested by article creator without comment or edit summary. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Four square. MBisanz 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Handball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable schoolyard game with no formal rules or structure. No sources and not likely to ever be any. Risk of confusion with the Olympic sport of the same name. Article claims to differ from Australian Handball (played with a tennis ball) by being played with a tennis ball! dramatic (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to start an AFD for that, too :-) dramatic (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please don't start an AFD for four square :) Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenworth Truck T908 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article purports to be about a model of truck. However, nearly all of the text describes Kenworth Australia and its model range, and we already have an article on that company and its model range. There is nothing salvageable in this article. I propose that the text be deleted and the article be replaced by a redirect until someone wants to write substantially about the model. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Justice League (TV series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep They appear to be signicant characters that have been developed into a storyline. They've been made into toys. I think it's probably best to include them in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The characters have been made into toys and contrary to the other nominations of today, this article has sources. If need be it can be stubbified to delete unsourced material, that would still leave a notable or mergeable lead. The title would be a useful redirect. - Mgm| 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hundreds of thousands of characters have toys made after them, and I'm sure that more minor characters from this series also have them. How do these toys establish notability any more than any other toy of a non-notable character? The article doesn't have sources (which were added after the nomination, just to clarify); it has two links, one confirming the existence of toys, and and another providing an in-universe description, which is basically an external links section. If real critical reception is provided, that is one thing, but to base an entire article on the existence of a few toys is just pointless. TTN (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Batman: The Animated Series . MBisanz 00:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman: The Animated Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges don't have to be full merges, you know... - Mgm| 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the episode in which he is made, which seems to be the only significant place in the series where he appears. If he's used more generally, then a combination article would be an more appropriate place & it should be a merge. I consider it an abuse of deletion process to nominatefor deletion articles which can be redirected or merged. DGG (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Justice League Unlimited 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) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The argument for deletion is that there is little supporting material for the article. Well, it is hard to reference a copyrighted television show online. The article about otherstuffexists says the argument may or may not be valid. How about the myriad of fictional cartoon characters that are a part of wikipedia that do not exist outside of their shows of origin? That was the original reason for deletion. We should then delete the Smurfs, including Papa Smurf, Smurfette, Brainy Smurf... BTW, I'm not calling for their deletions. I have yet to see why ever deleting articles that are not: Spam, offensive, or inaccurate could ever help make Knowledge better.chad78 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The lack of sources providing real world context, truth is not the basis for inclusion, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:PLOT. Copyright status has no effect on the availability of sources. We have featured articles on fictional characters, see Jason Vorhees. Prehaps we should delete the articles on individual Smurfs. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid; it doesn't establish a basis for keeping or deleting. Jay32183 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Static Shock 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) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
  • "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
  • "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
  • "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
  • "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm| 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and consider about redirect on the article talk page. I note that real world information is present. 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider a merge on the relevant talk page. It's an abuse of deletion process to propose an article for deletion which can be merged, at least without saying why it it shouldnt be merged or redirected. Perhaps the last sentence of the nom says that, but I can't tell what it means. . DGG (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • There are no sources, it can't be merged. No matter how reasonable the redirect is, it is not a reason to preserve the history of content we're getting rid of. We can, and should, delete the article then make a redirect. Jay32183 (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, and discuss which to do on the relevant talk pages. Most of the content here is verifiable, whether or not it is notable. DHowell (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If it isn't notable then "keep" isn't an option. If you're going to argue to keep an article that's been brought up on notability issues, you need to show that it is notable. Jay32183 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable enough. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to Static Shock. MBisanz 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Breed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Static Shock 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) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Static Shock. Not independently notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Static Shock and merge anything that can be verified. May not be independently notable, but makes for a reasonable search term so a redirect is in order.- Mgm| 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keep appropriate combination article. Nominating combination articles is an attempt to remove coverage entirely. There is no policy that notability be independent of the work. I do not see significant OR, and if there is ithe article can be edited. Who's to say how much plot summary is too much. No assertion is made by the nominator that sources cannot be found. And the last sentence of the nomination is meaningless--so much so that the nominator has never been able to paraphrase it or explain. DGG (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Real world context is required to establish notability of all fictional things. It's not too much plot, it's the lack of real world context. TTN's last statement is that the editors of the article show no interest in having any information beyond plot added to the article. Combining non-notable things does not suddenly make a notable topic, being a combination article is meaningless, they are held to the same standards as other articles. Jay32183 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "TTN's last statement is that the editors of the article show no interest in having any information beyond plot added to the article." Jay, that does clarify things about "no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." Now I know what to respond to: Why is the current lack of interest in working on an article an indication that it should be deleted? The current lack of work is a reason why it should be worked on. If the original creators have lost interest, others can step in. Much good Knowledge articles have been worked on my many different people, often after an orginal ed. or group lost interest in it, or, as may be the case for some of the more naive articles here, did what they could. It's against deletion policy to delete fixable articles. So unless it asserts they can never be fixed., such as by showing no references do exist and none ever will , the argument is always irrelevant. We delete for unsourcable, not unsourced. All articles using that argument need review, is case anyone was impressed by this attempt to obscurely state the wrong policy. Before I start on that, does TTN confirm that what Jay said is what he means?DGG (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not in itself a call for deletion, it's actually a preemptive argument against "It's a proper use of WP:SS". People inappropriately use summary style as an excuse to keep anything, which is quite annoying since summary style says not to do that, WP:AVOIDSPLIT. TTN's last bit isn't the deletion reason, it's the counter to the most probable keep reason. At least that's how I take it. Right or wrong, it is not a reason to review all the articles TTN has nominated for deletion in the past. Jay32183 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I continue to like to hear what he himself meant by it; I see no mention of splitting or summary style in that phrase. What you say, however, may be on some occasions a valid argument about preemptive splitting--and, like discussions to merge, a subject for talk page discussion. DGG (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

does not meet notability criteria. see WP:CREATIVE Dlabtot (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact that Heather Sharfeddin authored some books which are for sale on Amazon. However, that is not a valid notability criteria according to WP:CREATIVE. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW's Public Sock (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Keep – Regretfully - Based on the fact that I did find some very glowing reviews on several of her books and a few in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here . Which, for me makes the author acceptable under notability inclusion for authors. Likewise, I hope that her next book, scheduled for 2009 will make the best sellers list and we will read about Ms. Sharfeddin, here on Knowledge. Best of luck to her. ShoesssS 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I followed your link, but I couldn't find the " in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources " that you refer to - no doubt my mistake. Perhaps you could help out and add them to the article. BTW, re your edit summary, this is not a vote. Dlabtot (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - The Capital Press interview and Reed Business Information piece are articles about the author, more so than the book. I know they are pay sites, so most editors do not have access. However, in the synopsis of the pieces, you can gather the tone of the article. Regarding vote versus opinion (in my edit summary), you are absolutely right and I misspoke. I give you full permission to Slap me with a wet trout. ShoesssS 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I see some notability here, not much (per our guidelines), but some. The review suggests she's staking out new ground in a western themed genre, and she's had a couple of books. I lean towards keeping the author as I think it helps the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Static Shock. MBisanz 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Talon (Static Shock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Static Shock 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) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete If someone digs up sources and prunes let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
  • "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
  • "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
  • "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
  • "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm| 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep same reasons as for all the similar nomination--redirect and merge are considered elsewhere. A deletion nomination for something potentially mergable or redirectable without explaining or even asserting the inappropriateness of such is an abuse of deletion process, regardless of the subject. DGG (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deiz talk 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How to vote in Broward County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability standards, appears to be a presentation by a bunch of students. NW's Public Sock (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This character article does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond 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) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
  • "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
  • "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
  • "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
  • "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm| 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Batman Beyond. MBisanz 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Curaré (Batman Beyond) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond 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) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
  • "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
  • "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
  • "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
  • "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm| 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-Motion Cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article may exist purely to promote a corporate entity. The corporation may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I think the company is worth a stub. I added a link to where they link all their reviews and such. It's a relatively distinctive product and I think they're notable within the cycling world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Postulate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a mathematical theory that I am unable to verify exists. No reliable sources were provided, none were found. Last sentence is telling: ". . . still no proof of the phenomenon." I believe this was made up one day. TN‑X-Man 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Galactik Football - for the time being. A merge to a List of characters in Galactik Football would not be unreasonable, but the articles as they stand are generally completely unsourced and fail WP:N and WP:V (not to mention WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT). Black Kite 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahito (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These characters do not establish notability independent of Galactik Football through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of their information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the articles, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail on the characters. TTN (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
D'Jok (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mei (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Micro-Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rocket (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sinedd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Snow Kids (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thran (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tia (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:
  • "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
  • "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
  • "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
  • "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

TTN has not shown any attempt at finding sources before making the nomination. - Mgm| 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge all If you're saying that one or more of the articles contains sources, and that the nominator is incorrect in saying otherwise, you're welcome to point out which articles have sources. On the other hand, if you're saying that nominators have an obligation to source someone else's article, then let me be the first to say that "No, they don't." Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They don't, but they do have to establish the article is unsalvagable or give someone else the chance to fix it without forcing a deadline. - Mgm| 09:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally, if it's evident that someone is making a good faith effort to fix things, the debate stays open longer. A closing admin has the discretion to hold off on a ruling. This is particularly true in cases where the today's article is noticeably different from the one that was nominated, because the reasons originally given may no longer apply. I'm all in favor of saying "wait" (or in '08, saying "oh, wait!") when someone is trying to make things better. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider merging if the notability is borderline for the individual characters, as would seem likely, but this is not the place to discuss merges. One should not assert something cannot be referenced or improved without giving some basis for that. I note we do not delete for unsourced, just unsourcable, so saying something currently has no sources for notability is not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Original research, plain and simple. Other than The Snow Kids, none of these articles has any sources at all, and those on the Snow Kids fail WP:RS easily. It is for those seeking content to be included to provide sources and verify it, not for those seeking it to be deleted to prove that none exist. See WP:BURDEN. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete: darthsanddroids.net and irregularwebcomic.net are now reliable sources and can be cited as references? Absolutely not. It looks as though this AfD nomination was canvassed heavily, so the number of keeps to deletes must be weighed appropriately. There simply aren't enough reliable sources and external coverage that establish notability for inclusion here. Passing references to the site only establish its existence on the Web, they don't establish that it's a notable place. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

{{notavote}}

TV Tropes Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found, no news hits whatsoever. They've apparently been cited by the New York Times and a Lost DVD set but that doesn't inherently make them notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - No WP:RS that are non-trivial found. I cannot see how this survived its previous nomination. Sorry, but the sources just don't confer notability, and the New York Times article mentioned in the previous AfD links to it (which doesn't mean much). DARTH PANDA 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Give it time. Their influence will spread. Cyberchao X 2:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is heavily reminiscent of the webcomic deletions--web material is on the web and referenced by other things on the web. Web material is only rarely referenced outside the web. The fact that it's mentioned in more than one non-web source at all could only happen if it's pretty darn notable; it's just that the web notability guidelines are broken.
Also, it has 14316 pages (or 14685 non-discussion pages in the Main namespace only as of June). It really belongs on http://meta.wikimedia.org/List_of_largest_wikis ; the only reason it's not there is that nobody put it in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even so, it does not pass WP:WEB which specifically asks for non-trivial mentions in non-trivial work. It doesn't matter where this material exists; it's fine as the material exists. I can see no evidence of this fact. DARTH PANDA 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Mixed. I can't find any coverage of TV Tropes itself in reliable sources. Links to, yes, but not coverage. "Lots of sites link to it" doesn't matter; popularity is not notability. Anything we do ourselves to justify it would be original research. As WP:WEB says, articles need to do more "describe the nature, appearance or services" of a site. That said, it does seem to fall entirely within that which is allowed by WP:STUB. What's there is well-written and cited; the page is on the right track. WP:STUB and WP:N have always had a dynamic tension with each other; I don't see it as reasonable to consider either in isolation. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the multiple references from other web sites are not enough, the sole fact that it's referenced from outside the web should be.Medinoc (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted, it has been referenced by webcomics which are themselves considered notable. Furthermore, the NYT is a respected mainstream publication, surely that alone should be enough (and of course a similar argument could be made for its mention in the Lost boxset)? While it is only linked to, rather than being reported on, shouldn't the fact that its being cited as a source itself be an indication that its notable? A decent text book tends to be quoted as much as its reviewed if you'll excuse a metaphor.--Bisected8 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not really. WP:WEB stipulates that "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores" doesn't count. The mentions that you note are largely a mix of the four, making all of these mentions "trivial" and therefore not notable. The issue is not that it should be mentioned; there needs to exist an article in a non-trivial reliable source that talks solely about the site, and that simply does not exist. DARTH PANDA 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is referenced by a lot of people as being a reliable source for analyzing the workings of fiction. It can be used as a helpful source (as one teacher did) and should therefore stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.88.90 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a useful site, as the above poster said, and is referenced by numerous blogs and other sites. This article is in need of improvement and expansion, of course, but it is a valuable resource nonetheless. a good references. ATD (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A reasonably medium profile site; here's a minor mention in a Belfast newspaper. In addition, the second Google result for "Mary Sue" (after our own entry on the subject) is the TVTropes wiki entry on the subject. Luc "Somethingorother" French 18:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin - The keep votes seem to almost uniformly fail wp:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - NuclearWarfare My work 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would hope the admins know how to do their job. But you shouldn't forget that WP:ATA is an essay with unclear consensus status. It gets linked all the time, but as has been said on this very page, links do not establish anything. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lotta keeps there, but not one of them hints at it passing WP:WEB. I can't find any reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I would like to argue this from the perspective of looking at the TV Tropes Wiki as a site similar to Snopes. It does not receive much media exposure since its nature is not one that attracts the attention of "general media" (with the exception of the New York Times mention). Usefulness alone is not a good reason for inclusion in Knowledge. Aglets are useful, but their inclusion in Knowledge is based on them being notable information to a specific group. So this leads to the question, to who or whom should a source of information be notable to that its inclusion in Knowledge be relevant. I firmly believe that Notability should define article inclusion in Knowledge, and as a long time user of Knowledge I have attempted to guage all my edits by this guideline. Analyzing this from my own subjective perspective I believe enough sources which are themselves considered notable enough for inclusion of Knowledge have found TV Tropes worthy of interest or reference that I find its inclusion warranted. I would like to point out that constant interest in the site should be demonstrated, because notability is a time dependent phenomenon - in the future, TV Tropes may no longer be as notable. Future deletion is not out of the question, but I believe it is unreasonable to remove this entry at this point in time. Full Disclosure: I am am an active contributor to TVTropes and to Knowledge. Ctrl build (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Notability, as it is defined by WP:N, is explicitly not time-dependent. I think you are confusing "popularity" with "notability". On WP, "notability" is basically whether a subject itself has received significant coverage. In other words, are there news/magazine articles, books, encyclopedia entries, documentaries, etc., about TV Tropes itself? Not links to or references to TVT, but actually about TV Tropes. Notability is about coverage, not use. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Time magazine blog "Nerd World" references TV Tropes directly. --65.184.44.109 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with many of the above points, and especially with Ctrl build's analysis. But I cannot help but feel that this discussion contains a lot of policy quoting without substantive discussion to back it up. I also find it odd that our policy is structured in such a way that web references don't count for much. Knowledge itself references TVTropes , and while I'm sure there is some policy regarding this, I find it ancillary to the fact that TVTropes has print references comparable to other sites whose articles we keep. Magicallydajesus (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Now that you pointed out a reference by Knowledge of TVTropes, I found a list of 147 references of this type . I understand that the Notability policy does not recognize self reference as a defense, but it does point to it being considered a substantive source by contributors. Ctrl build (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: If being trivial is an issue, then I must direct you to the hundreds of minor-issue comic characters this wiki has accrued. Being mentioned in newspapers and webcomics (which all have pages here) alone makes the TVTW more notable than Tagak the Leopard Lord. Andraxx (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would appear most of the people arguing "keep" are saying that TVT should be kept because lots of sites (including Knowledge) link to it as a reference. That's not mentioned anywhere in WP:N that I can find. WP:N wants significant coverage of the thing itself. Lots of links to TVT is not coverage of TVT itself. For example, a newspaper article about TVT would be good. (An article which mentions TVT in passing would not.) If links are the only thing people come up with, the result is sure to be deletion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should remind that the question is neither TVT as a reliable source for WK nor WK acknowledging TVT and the work of its contributor but rather does this article have enough strong references to back it. --KrebMarkt 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:ILIKEIT and I kind of hope it stays but I don't have any strong policy based reason to bold "keep". However, those arguing to delete have a point. I doubt it currently passes WP:WEB but perhaps it's time to consider lowering the bar a bit for popular websites if it's clear the site won't become more popular/notable "because" it has an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The First Step (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:V Nouse4aname (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm leaning towards delete, but don't know anything about the subject, so it's too early to judge until more opinions are presented, at least. For now, anyone who is interested in finding sources might find this Google search somewhat useful. -- Ynhockey 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources in there, fails WP:MUSIC. Alternatively, rewrite as an article on the 1994 Tracy Byrd song by this name, which was a Top 5 hit and may be worthy of its own article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewirte to the Tracy Byrd song. Can find nothing that establishes notability for this band, and the Tracy Byrd song, The First Step made #5 on the Billboard Hot Country Songs, and #4 in the Canadian Country charts.  Esradekan Gibb  21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. It should be noted that the discography is not a list of albums - Connection is a single for instance. There may be another notable topic that could have this title, but this article should be deleted first - we don't want this in the history of any new article.--Michig (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to occupation of Gori. MBisanz 00:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to be notable for only one event, if at all. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fog Creek Copilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and without any clear assertion of notability. Not seeing any RS coverage in Google. Not seeing significant RS coverage in Google. This is not a new article and it does not seem to have any hope of improving. Previous AfD was 3 years ago and did not reach a consensus. I think it is time to look at it again. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – Found more than 2 and less than 10 creditable – verifiable – reliable – 3rd party references, as shown here . What we get into now, is that enough. Which begs the next question, what is enough? Is it a minimum of 3 or 20 or 50, perhaps a hundred? Boy I wish, we could have more definitive guidelines I guarantee it would reduce the nominations, here at AFD, by at least half and reduce heartburn – grief – nervous twitches (developed by defending your point of view) – and other stress related phobias by 90%. ShoesssS 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I made a mistake on the Google search. When I searched Google News I forgot I had to specifically ask for old articles to be included and drew a complete blank. I didn't mean to misrepresent the results of the search and I apologise if I did that unintentionally. I have amended the nomination accordingly. I have looked through the list of hits and, while it provides some verifiability, I am still not convinced the coverage demonstrates enough notability to merit an article. The first hit (ZDnet) is primarily about a film and only incidentally about the software and the rest doesn't seem to add up to much at all on cursory inspection. (Note: I didn't register for the articles that require an ID to read them. I just read the abstracts.) I guess the real question is: How many of these links would actually be useful as references for the article? I think the ZDNet one is the only candidate. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – No apologies necessary and I never thought that you are misrepresenting. In fact, this is the type of article that should be brought to a AFD in that it is borderline and should have a consensus of the community to either Keep or that nasty thing done :-). My current soapbox is what constitutes significant coverage to establish notability. Sorry, just happened to pick your nomination :-(. ShoesssS 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed tall buildings and structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep CRYSTAL forbids unverifiable nonsense about future events. Article is only on notable historical and extant plans for buildings, and some well referenced credible scientific research from refereed publications. As CRYSTAL states: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.. In my opinion this is a clear cut encyclopedic article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Note the article was simply split off of List of tallest buildings and structures in the world due to space reasons.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only is this a valid split off, I believe WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. I'll cite from the policy page. "ikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The article lists verifiable speculations rather than unverifiable ones and the buildings listed (seeing as they're listed as tallest buildings and structures) would be of interest as an article topic if they were built. The rest of the guideline also doesn't give me any indication how these structures would fit the criteria. - Mgm| 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a very useful article that is on a notable topic. Many of the planned proposed structures are verifiable. The Space Elevator, for example, has been exhaustively discussed in journal article and science fiction for decades. The fact that no one has built one is not a reason to regard this as crystal-ballery. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- the only crystals I detect are the ones of water ice precipitating from the sky. The broad topic of the list is one that merits coverage in en encyclopedia, and the various entries are mostly well referenced. It is somewhat speculative, yes, but this is not an unjustified flight of fancy about what the future may hold, it is speculation covered in reliable sources. Reyk YO! 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — it's not crystalballery if it is verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Frequently users attempt to use WP:CRYSTAL to delete articles on anything proposed or planned. Of course WP:CRYSTAL only forbids unverifiable topics, not simply because they're proposed or planned. --Oakshade (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No crystal in this gem on an article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Jazz Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable defunct corporation. Unreferenced and it looks like there isn't any substantial information out there. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Allen (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No, he's not internationally known for that album he made : Googling for the combination of it, him brings zero (0) hits independent of this article. Oo7565 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. He has won an award , though I don't belive it counts as a major one, and has received some local coverage , but this isn't enough. If further coverage is found, it may be keepable, but at the moment he appears to fail WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Google Chrome is failing me. Who are the judges? If there's one thing I learned is that an award is only as notable as the organization giving it out...- Mgm| 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
There are awards and music competitions that are clearly 'major awards', such as Grammy's, Brit awards, MOBO awards, etc., and there are awards that clearly are not major awards, e.g. the Chesterfield King's Arms Battle of the Bands Competition (I made that one up). Others are somewhere in between. I've never heard of the BCIMAs, and there is no article here about the awards, but then again it's probably the case that I've never heard of most things, and there are plenty of notable topics that don't have articles here. The BCIMAs appear to be 'local' awards (though the 'locality' has a population of over 4 million, so is potentially larger than some 'national' awards), so may not be enough to constitute notability on their own, and the fact that I've only heard of one of the award winners (I am unfortunately familiar with Daniel Powter) suggests to me that the BCIMAs don't cut it. It would be helpful if WP:MUSIC could include a list of all awards that are considered major awards - I doubt that it would be a huge list.--Michig (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Forthcoming album with no independent reliable sources. (Page lists myspace and forum threads.) Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Zeitgeist: Addendum. MBisanz 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Venus Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relies heavily on primary sources. The topic gained notoriety due to being a focus of the movie Zeitgeist: Addendum, a full-length documentary released for free on the internet. To be honest I'm not sure myself whether or not that constitutes notability. There's also widespread coverage, but mostly via blogs, and again I don't know if that means notability either.

There's also concern on the talk page that the project is nothing more than a money-making scheme.

A merge to Zeitgeist: Addendum might be a solution. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect – to Jacque Fresco for reasons by ShoesssS above. Each article individually is marginal at best under the Notability guidelines as pointed out above in google search on both. Fresco is mostly notable for being himself in interviews... talk shows, etc.- Incorporating Venus Project into Jacque Fresco makes the most sense to me. Mostly it appears that all of the connected information revolves around Fresco and his opinions, and yes it does appear to be a money making business. It may be that Widefox above is correct in saying their self published information is an advert for a corporation. Mention of Zeitgeist Addendum would be included in a new Jacque Fresco/Venus Project merge article. Merging into Zeitgeist Addendum only, would take away from an older bit of information as to Fresco and Venus project which for better or worse have been around for some time. For that reason I think it is a bad idea to merge with Zeitgeist Addendum which may be trying to gain notability from Fresco... and not the other way around. skip sievert (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn

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

No clear notability given, only says "was a German police officer during WW2, etc." American Eagle (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely finished with this artcle to put it that way. My first refeerence was from an encyclopedia, and I intended to give a short overview of the person and then provide more details. This was my first try at a wikipedia page, and I am a bit uncertain to what will happen next with the article. Do this issue need to be resolved before I can write something else, or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musculomusico (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The XFD can be tricky at times, yes. But you are free to work on the article and attempt to establish notability, I may have been wrong. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, thank you kindly. I certainly will not hesitate to ask you any more questions should the need arise.Musculomusico (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw this request. It has been expanded and not what I thought it was before. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
ok, thanks Musculomusico (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Butterfly Kisses (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is poorly sourced, borders on attacking, and the organization doesn't seem notable. a) The sources given are WorldNetDaily, a personal site, and a similar organization that isn't the subject of the article. b) The POV issues are rampant - which isn't a reason to delete, but it would be difficult to rewrite this (IMO) without deleting and starting over. c) I'm unable to find sources that corroborate any evidence, or even anything about the group in general. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This has already failed four three AFDs in the past. I believe this is worthy of WP:CSD#G4, but I'm going to give the most recent creator the benefit of the doubt and bring it here instead. Dweller makes the point that this is WP:V, and I agree that it is. It is well written, referenced, and interesting. But, it's still a dictdecf, and dictdefs belong in wictionary, where an entry already exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – Since the last AFD-Meh(slang) in 2005, the press has published 67 articles in 2006 , 90 in 2007 , and 60 in 2008 for a total of 217 articles from 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources concerning this term. Some may say Meh, but I believe the term has evolved to more than a dictionary entry and has established its Notability well within our standards for inclusion at Knowledge. Thanks ShoesssS 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – First off, there is no way that this could be a CSD G4, because the current version is completely different than any previous deleted version. The current article begins with a dicdef, appropriately, but the subsequent section on "Controversy" is encyclopedic (not dictionary) material, and of demonstrated WP:N notability since it has multiple non-trivial references. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Controversies related to the word meh" but I would recommend keeping it simple. Paul Erik 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- as stated above, sure the beginning is a dic-def, but after that, the article actually has viable encyclopedic content based on reliable sources. I'd say its transcended being a word that suitable for just a dictionary, and has become an valid topic for an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (article creator, and practically the only contributor) Speedy totally inappropriate as that policy specifically excludes examples like this. As far as AfD goes, I recreated the article carefully because I was able to find and include multiple non trivial references in RS. This allows me to argue strongly that it's a notable term and I strongly disagree that the article is "a dicdef". 90% of this article would not be found in any dictionary, not even wiktionary. No doubt over time, the non dicdef elements will grow beyond the controversy sections I've so far listed, but even they are enough to warrant its inclusion according to our deletion policy. --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a dictionary definition, with a few closely related stories cited about controversy over it being included in a dictionary. That in fact shows that it is a very questionable dic-def. Examples of people using it in an article are not convincing as to the need to have an encyclopedia article about it. Especially unconvincing are mere searches showing the three letters appearing in print, without it being the dicdef meaning (" jume (pronounced JEW-meh)," in the first cite from 2006, or "meh" as pronunciation of an Arabic phoneme in another cited article from 2006.Edison (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per reason given by Shoessss. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is more than a dictionary definition and is topical having recently had a half page article about in The Times. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Meh, seems to be enough there. Keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge is not a slang usage guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm puzzled to the point of bemusement by that opinion. Knowledge is an encyclopedia for anything that is notable, whether that is a politician, animal, historical event or, yes, slang expression. In fact, we have an entire Category (Category:Slang) devoted to slang, with 17 subcategories. So clearly, your objection is not because it's merely slang, but you think it's a "usage guide". But even at a quick glance, the article is demonstrably not a "usage guide". I can therefore only assume you've read an old version of the page, perhaps from your computer's cache, rather than the article that currently exists. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Knowledge is not a repository for everything which has been noticed. Please see our policy which clearly covers this material when it says Knowledge is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide.. The place for such material is Wiktionary which already has an article on this. We don't need one too. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "repository for everything which has been noticed": Knowledge is an encyclopedia for notable things. According to our definition of notability this is notable. It passes WP:V easily.
  • dicdef: What percentage of this article do you consider to be a dictionary definition that would be appropriately placed at wiktionary? All our articles should include a definition. Do you mean to suggest that all our articles should be deleted? I'm amazed you cite WP:NOTDICDEF as it makes my point, not your's:

Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible.

...which has been done. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see the main policy article which explains in exhaustive detail the difference between articles about words (which belong in dictionaries) and articles about topics (which is what we do). This article fails that policy. Note also that the proper topic here - casual indifference - is better covered under other titles such as apathy and boredom. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
this is more than a word and a redirect to apathy or boredom misses the point. Meh is not just a dicdef, but has elements as a social meme, as a topic of controversy and as a notable neologism. If the article discussed just the word's usage, it would fall into the the policy you cite. But it does not. Much like, for example, the articles on apathy and boredom, to pick two examples. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The news media routinely discuss words - their origin, meaning, pronunciation, addition to dictionaries and so forth. There are even entire productions devoted to this such as Call My Bluff, Hot For Words and so on. Such lexicography is insufficient to qualify words for inclusion here since many/most unusual words would qualify and we would turn the place into a dictionary, which is contrary to policy, as discussed. The additional policy which disqualifies such routine news coverage from inclusion here is WP:NOT#NEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's now enough sources. When the information about a word and its uses is extensive, then its suitable for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic information about a word and how it is used is sufficient warrant for an article here, as long as its more than basic dictionary definition+etymology+illustrative quotation. I think an encyclopedic article could be written for most common words--a dictionary is a summary of it in directory fashion. DGG (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Our policy WP:NAD explains in some detail that the length of an entry is not significant. Major dictionaries such as the OED have enormous entries for common words, detailing their etymology, history and usage. This policy explains that the key issue is whether the article is about a word or about a topic. Wiktionary does words while we do topics. Is this not clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd disagree with the whole "word vs. topic" test. There's too fine a line between a "word" and a "topic". I think an encyclopedia is in many ways a dictionary with expanded information. I'd say most of our "topics" are merely words, with lengthy definitions, etymologies, histories of use, etc. Would you advocate the deletion of shit too? I don't see much difference there, except purely in length; the type of information contained within is identical. We have way too many articles based on the mere history of words as a function of language to say that those don't make valid encyclopedia articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 6 Dec 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If the article consisted of a mere definition, th argument to delete would have some merit. This article consists of much more. The history and controversy makes it a valid encyclopedia entry. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:30, 5 Dec 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A single definition is not a dicdef.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive..- (User) Criffer (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Get Out (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Contested redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More references: "a little taste of what young people in Chile are listening to" PRI, Homage to Allende La Cuarta, Chile.com, Terra -- Mvuijlst (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Product with no assertion of notability or encyclopedic worth/content. Tznkai (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Apparently non-notable chemistry professor. Prodded by Royalbroil; prod removed by page creator & sole author Jrrkulp, who has no edits beyond this page and has reinserted irrelevant material with BLP concerns. Careful Google Scholar searches have failed to uncover more than a possible one or two research papers; however, I do not have access to specialised chemistry publications databases and might have missed something. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he fairly likely does have tenure, based on his Associate Professor rank. But simply having tenure is far from sufficient for passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without malice To paraphrase WP:PROF, if Dr. Case does something that would merit a Knowledge article in its own right, then we should have an article about him. The (deleted) comment that "His prefered method of teaching is through sarcasm and bad jokes" is hardly a claim to notability among chemistry teachers, but rather a statement of common practice in the field! Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if he were tenured full professor, that in itself would not make him notable either. --Crusio (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The operative word here is "typically". Yes, that's true, but not invariably. I think I know several non-notable full professors, even at major universities who are not notable. As they are friends of mine, however, I'll refrain from giving examples... :-) --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Somewhere between notable and non notable. But i think it fails, but only just, WP:N. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Having spent a loooot of time when I first came to Knowledge to clean up an earlier incarnation of this article (before another AfD smooshed a lot of random information to the end), it now occurs to me that this is all in-universey trivia and plot summary with no notability to the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. For a couple of reasons. First, Trek is a major entertainment franchise and there is precedent for articles of this nature relating to the hardware. Second, it is sourced (granted, mostly primary sources but there are secondary ones out there if you look hard enough, and I don't adhere to the believe of some Wikipedians that primary sources are evil, especially with relation to fiction topics). Third, the fact a non-Knowledge site like Memory Alpha covers this differently or in more detail is irrelevant; there's is misconception MA is part of Knowledge and it has nothing to do with us, therefore we have no obligation to cater our articles to what they do (beyond a courtesy link or two, of course). A key thing here is that this article is confining itself, it appears, to on-screen references. Therefore WP:NOR isn't an issue. MA, if they do a similar article, can go into the more murky areas of including the books and comics. But I don't see a problem with this as it stands. 23skidoo (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I mentioned MA in response to any transwiki suggestions; I doubt anyone actually thinks MA and Knowledge are related. Can you offer up anything to suggest the topic's failure to assert/establish notability? --EEMIV (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply – This should help . As noted by the link, there are more than just a handful of articles that deal with “Starfleet” ships. Thus establishing “Real” world notability. Hope this helps. ShoesssS 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that Knowledge probably needs to fire up a "Starships (Star Trek)" article that includes some of the production info. -- in fact, it was poking around for a good starting point to work on that in user space that reminded me this article exists. However, this article (a catalog of the sequence of registry numbers and some truly minor starship classes) isn't much of a step in that direction. --EEMIV (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Overall, I'd rather see massive reconstructive surgery and renaming on this article, than to have it deleted and create another one from scratch. At least that way, the history is preserved, rather than blown away. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple published works on the topic of star trek hardware establish its notability. Article includes relevant information of real world notability, specifically information on the model design processes that led to the assignment of different numbers to the different ships. JulesH (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean, other than quoting set/model designer Matt Jeffries on the process that led to the numbering system (ISBN 0-671-03475-8, , ISBN 0671002198)?
      • I was taking those into account. I didn't say there were no sources, I said there was no significant coverage. They provide trivial coverage, minor at best. Basically, those sources are not enough to satisfy WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator wants to use this material for some sort of rewrite and so the WP:GFDL requires that we keep this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, if I were going to use much/any of this material, I wouldn't have nominated it. I'm instead looking for sources outside the franchise; content here I don't plan to squish info. from this article elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is important enough, and there are sources. We have many articles which are essentially descriptive catalogs of semi-notable items. It's a good way to handle them. DGG (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with - Startrek ships are certainly notable enough to deserve such an article, my only problem is the duplication betweeen this page and the by class page which seems to present most of the same information in a more clearer way. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

either keep or merge It could be merged into List of Starfleet starships ordered by class like mentioned above but the entries in this article sould be added before the tables of "ships of that class" so to keep the info. rdunn 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: I could allow this, could do with a few more inline ref towards the end of the article (from the "Class" section downwards) and I'm not really happy about the non-free image's fair use rationale (I'd prefer just a close up of the numbers), but that's not the article's fault. Should say though, I do applaud the nominators "growth", I too have had a similar journey :) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Władzimir Wałoc Trubetsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page by a prolific spammer and sock puppeteer, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T%C3%B5nu_Trubetsky Miacek (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, I understood now that starting individual AfDs is useless, as there are so many of such 'articles' here. The guy seems to have set as his goal to create Knowledge 'articles' for all of his family members. If he is not stopped soon, we will most probably have articles on Trubetsky's and his ancesters' favorite pets and similar things :-D. I agree that Tõnu Trubetsky is notable, but the other vanity pages should be deleted. --Miacek (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All such postings by Bloomfield sock puppet farm have both notability and RS problems. And the guy wasn't a prince, I'm positive about that. In addition to having created numerous hoaxes, this person has mistaken wikipedia for a forum for Trubetskoy genealogy. --Miacek (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are You from the Bugle? (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. Individual relisting from mass nomination. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) (2nd nomination). B. Wolterding (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was delayed in posting to the AfD list
The completion date should be delayed accordingly. It was posted correctly at 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC). 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lake Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only local notability, better suited as a sentence or paragraph in University_of_Toledo#Miscellaneous_facts, if this article title exists at all it should be a redirect to a more famous place with a similar name, such as Palmer Lake, Colorado davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Nom says delete see above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article when first created earlier was speedy deleted as it stated that 'Lake Palmer is a puddle in the parking lot'. Quite obviously a 'joke' entry, it was recreated as is and I tagged it for speedy again as previously deleted material but as it hadn't had a discussion this was rejected. I then put a PROD tag on it with an explanation and this was removed and now we are at AfD all discussing a puddle in a car park. The author must be having a heck of a laugh at us! Paste 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unverifiable, and pretty trivial. Even if sourced, probably not worth more than a brief mention on the UT page, if that. Silverfish (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks references to show notability. (If it were a dot on a map, would people come trooping in to claim it was inherently notable?) Edison (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. I speedily deleted the first appearance of this article as nonsense (the version saying it was just a collection of water in the parking lot), and the author recreated it with "references". The current version of the article doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria, but let's be realistic: Do we really need an article about a parking lot that floods out? It's akin to having an article about the pond in the back of my office building, even though the pond is there permanently, and I could probably find some references to it in its watershed district. We really don't need an article about a puddle in a parking lot. --Elkman 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment too bad IAR/snow-close/delete isn't an accepted consensus option. Or is it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Amateur film with no evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep OLIGO Primer Analysis Software; Delete Piotr Rychlik; Keep Wojciech Rychlik. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oligo Primer Analysis Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article still fails to establish notability. The immense amount of references imho doesn't change the situation, as all independent references only mention this software as a tool, thematically they cover something else. The article has been nominated and was deleted before (result: delete), the issues have not been resolved. Speedy deletion has recently been turned down, however . This product article is unreadable, constitutes advertising, and formes a walled garden with the two biographies of its developers, Wojciech Rychlik and Piotr Rychlik whose notability is established solely on the notability of the product Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the notability of the two biographies is solely (for Piotr Rychlik) or mainly (for Wojciech Rychlik) established on the development of the product in question:

Wojciech Rychlik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piotr Rychlik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Pgallert (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Was PMID 1718663 cited in the previous article? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
no; there were in fact only two references. Nor was there any actual indication or even bare assertion that it was in widespread use. Nor did any at the AfD make the least check for references. How anyone could say that poorly referenced article was identical to the present one puzzles me entirely. 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Trusilver and ChildofMidnight. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete P Rychlik-- only 3 published papers in Scopus, almost no citations. Whatever contributions he may have made to this software are unpublished. DGG (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep W Rychlik Scopus shows 28 published papers, highest citation counts 339. 163, for DNA hybridization papers; 99, 90 for other work, including the initiation factor sequence. Anyone who can invent a method where the key paper gets 339 citations is highly notable. It is to be clear proof of his being an authority in the subject. I think he would probably be notable even without it. DGG (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the software. AfD is not cleanup. Miami33139 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Connotation and denotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article lacks useful contents and is totally confused Philogo (talk · contribs) Text copied from edit summary when Philogo placed AfD tag yesterday. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Label has one barely notable band, no media coverage by 3rd party sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you NOT read the article or follow any of the references? Please allow me to present the "third party" sources:
Half of the bands on the label are active in the Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio region as well as in Louisiana. Before Ace Weekly dumped all of its online backlog, there were several articles on Eugene Records as well as the bands it sponsors. Ace Weekly is a Lexington based arts and entertainment magazine that promotes the alternative scene as well as the mainstream happenings in Central Kentucky.
Given that today is Thanksgiving, it may take me a while to contact those people who still have paper copies of those articles if you really need to have those additional references.- Team4Technologies (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition, it has been pointed out that the edits from Hoponpop69 to similar articles may violate WP:Point and/or WP:Disruption and his User Talk page shows evidence of his violation of Knowledge:No personal attacks, so this may just be yet another episode of a volatile user. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's drop that and discuss the article and not the nom. The user's supposed past disruptiveness and personal attacks should not come into play unless they are directly affecting this topic. In a nutshell, assume good faith. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is notable in that it occupies a niche market for punk music in the region, it has a stable of bands that have long histories, several bands on the label (like the Infected and the Kenmores) are nationally touring bands, and produce an internationally distributed fanzine (Eugene Fanzine). While that may not sound very notable for more urban areas, this is Central Kentucky we're talking about. It's about as notable as it can get there. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet notability for companies because it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Central Kentucky argument is very weak - in this case, notability is not relative to region. As said in the nom, there is apparently only one barely (if that) notable band that is part of the label. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not sufficiently notable. The one award claimed was an award created by this article's author himself (see Dom Martin). The only source cited that wasn't also created by this article's author is basically the subject's obituary. Rklawton (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per Boffob Clubmarx (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has an entry in a specialist paper encyclopedia, so per the WP:Five Pillars is a suitable subject for a Knowledge article. I'd also like to ask why being "basically the subject's obituary" makes a source ineligible - obituaries are amongst the best sources we can have to show notability because they show that subjects are considered by third parties to be notable enough for their lives to be written about. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Good question. My point was that just about everyone gets an obit. So if that's the best source the authors can come up with, it's a clear sign of the subject's lack of notability. As for your other point, I would expect a book or at least a few articles dedicated to this biographical subject rather than an extraordinarily brief book mention.Rklawton (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
        • You misread, he called it one of the best type of sources because it is a well-researched piece of information on the subject that covers large parts of his life. It's not neccesarily the best or only reference you have. - Mgm| 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some additional links related to Fr. Lourdino Barretto. I am sure I can come up with more (as well as for Fr. Chico Monteiro, whose article is slated for deletion):

An award has been instituted by Kala Academy in honor of Fr. Lourdino Barretto http://www.kalaacademy.org/Schedule1.htm

A short biography of Professor Maestro Lourdinho Barreto http://www.songs-from-goa.at/goa/barreto.php

http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/543/543%20d.%20mauzo,%20xavier%20cota.htm

http://www.ismps.de/India_ISMPS.htm

The award that i had founded (Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award) -- which was posthumously conferred on Fr. Lourdino -- and reference to which has since been deleted by Rklawton, should not prejudice Fr. Lourdino Barreto's notability in his own right. --Dommartin99 (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. The article is about a genuine issue but not one that most people know by the name of "flydigging", which appears to be a recently invented word that has not found significant currency.

Neologism - "must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", zero relevant ghits.

Inadequately referenced - only one of the references refers directly to the issue - the others are about something else entirely.

Soapbox article for pressure group andy (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? But it's not flydigging, that's for sure. andy (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has been written by Boris Johnson's PR agency, who fed the "story" to the Evening Standard. The event was not a Christmas party, but an awards ceremony recognising efforts of best practice within the industry, and the only "protesters" were employees of the PR agency, who are pursuing all avenues to get their made up phrase "flydigging" into the public consciousness.

  • Delete - fails WP:NEO - not enough evidence that it is in use. In fact WP:NEO saw this one coming: Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Knowledge to increase usage of the term. Sorry, Dylan, Knowledge is not a platform for PR campaigns. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:NEO - I can find no evidence that the term is in general use. If we make this an article on the concept, I haven't been able to find any sources other than the evening standard article about the protest. The fact that this article seems to be by the PR company appointed by Boris Johnson makes it seem likely the whole thing (the protest and all), is a publicity stunt. I can't seem to find any references to the group apart from the evening standard article. Silverfish (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I was pulling for the term, but it's a pretty clear cut case. Notability hasn't been established, and I'm not sure why it's called fly-digging? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by User:Thingg per CSD#G7--JForget 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Website Founders and Website Details (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently random collection of unsourced trivia about a random selection of websites, with no clear inclusion criteria. Presented as a table, which makes the entries near impossible to make any sense of.

Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR.

Also, per WP:NOT, Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Though i have taken all data from internet and wikipedia itself but anyways if this article is violating laws or it is against any laws given by wikipedia , please delete it, since i am a dilletant on Knowledge. Himanshu Prasad —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
--JForget  00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Confirmed hoax Mgm| 09:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Last Days of Blink-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existing DVD (if google doesn't know it, it does not exist.) GraafGeorge (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Self-promotion of yet another piece of software. 96 Google hits for "+"ivy framework" +php", some of which are unrelated. Lupo 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mayan tribe (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This New York City street gang fails WP:ORG and WP:V with no apparent coverage from reliable sources. I found only a couple of mentions on a local online forum. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jandal Web Application Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just another piece of software. Extlk unreachable for me, only 115 Google hits for "+jandal +j2ee", many of which are off-topic. Lupo 11:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Another HOAX. The third and fourth references do not mention the subject; the first is a WP article and says nothing about martial arts, let alone "Viper Karate"; the second is a general book about Bhutan. Searches - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - get nothing relevant about "Viper karate". The only faintly relevant thing I can find anywhere is that the WP article about Bando says "The American Bando Association incorporates 9 animal systems including: bull, boar, cobra, viper, python, panther, tiger, scorpion & eagle." But Bando is a Burmese martial arts system, and there is no source for all the article's guff, sorry picturesque detail, about its origins in Bhutan. I can't find "Fosta" or the "peak of Fostaloush" either, or any of the red-linked people (see talk page). The citing of references that don't mention the subject, and an author Palo123 (talk · contribs) with no other edits who has not returned to defend his creation, indicate that this is not just an obscure subject but a deliberate hoax. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


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

My apologies for entering first had information that from a six month stay overseas. I have not conformed to your format, nor can any new information be published in this forum. Good Luck to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palo123 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The sole author of the article has requested deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This list is not suitable for Knowledge. Top "Sad Songs" is just repetitive and/or unmeaningful information. I believe it also falls WP:NOT. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of reputable music publications have published 'saddest song' lists. The list is subject to edits, and I believe there will be a consensus as to the ranking of these songs. Perhaps the preface article or notes I added could be changed to make the list consistent with Knowledge's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbradford (talk • contribs)

  • Delete "compilation of multiple published and unpublished 'saddest song' lists" is exactly what original research and synthesis of new information means. - Mgm| 10:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "....according to individual forum posts across the Internet; which in this particular case, happens to be a valid source" - no it doesn't. Delete as unsalvagable OR, which could never be made "consistent with Knowledge's policies" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have copied the list to http://www.WorldsSaddestSongs.com. So I'll leave this Knowledge page in your hands, and won't make any additional changes or additions until the page's fate has been decided :) Mbradford
  • Delete as listcruft. The site the list is copied from says part of it was synthesised "according to individual forum posts across the Internet". While that may be a valid method of sourcing for that site, Knowledge requires far more reliable sources than some anonymous hack on the internet saying "Hallelujah" makes him cry. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I'll have to say that I liked the list, and I saved it as a text file to my computer; and I appreciate that Mbradford has done a lot of work on this; and I'm glad that it will live on in the "world's saddest songs" site. That said, however, it doesn't comply with Knowledge's rules against original synthesis, and it will be deleted for that reaason. Seems harsh, I know, but it's Knowledge's rule, and it's actually a good rule. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NPOV hell. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete.Please delete it and get it over with. I'll maintain the list on my own site. I was going to do that to begin with, but I thought that by posting it on Knowledge, the 'vigorous debate' would eventually create a MUCH BETTER LIST than I could ever compile. So I think that excluding this type of list is a disservice to Wikipedians. But perhaps another format can be found for collaborative online development of a list such as this, where general consensus can dictate what the 'saddest' songs actually are :) Mbradford
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Angel Sanchez Gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability made, none found. Non-notable software Blowdart | 07:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

- Added media sources, stop vandalizing the article while notability is established —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.184.193 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-03 13:44 UTC

Removing the AFD template is vandalism pure and simple. And whitepapers and reprinted press releases are not reliable sources.--Blowdart | 13:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, then delete it and move on, quit editing the talk page and let it go, I don't care anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.184.193 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-03 13:57 UTC

As you're not the author you can't make that type of request either. --Blowdart | 14:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note — Above IP has been blocked for vandalism. If the author wishes to request deletion, then the author must log in and either comment here or blank the article (which is equivalent to desiring deletion). MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A different article at this location was deleted in 2007 after Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism. The problem that goes for the new one just like the old one is: The term "anti-hellenism" is used in so many different ways that any article about it will either remain a pure dicdef (anti-Hellenism means being against something Greek), or weave together an OR story out of unrelated elements. There are simply too many ways how and why and in what sense someone might have been "against something Greek" (political, cultural, modern, ancient, different political contexts, et cetera.) The present sub-stub article has chosen a radically non-committal approach: somebody has evidently been Googling more or less blindly for any and all uses of the term, and simply listed whatever they found, with a single brief sentence about each attestation. There is no indication these attestations are in any way representative, no discussion about how they are related, nothing about how notable each of them is. While "reliably sourced", this is nevertheless maximally useless. – A Prod endorsed by two editors was removed, by someone who apparently wishes to to turn the page again into one of those dreaded nationalist-masochistic "Anti-X'ism" articles, which list any and all perceived acts of hostility against a certain ethnic group, wallowing in the national feeling of injustice and victimization from those oh so hostile neighbours. This is of course the last thing we ought to allow, so before this happens I'm bringing it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. What do the Hasmonean dynasty and Oscar Wilde have in common? perhaps only this article. Any attempt to knit such diverse temporal and geographical elements into a coherent article would inevitably fall afoul of WP:SYN. Aramgar (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. No doubt, an article can be made about anti-Greek persecutions, sentiments and stereotypes. There probably is one already; I have not yet searched diligently: some material seems to be at Greek diaspora. The other type of anti-Hellenism would be probably best subsumed under the general rubric of anti-Classicism, hostility to the legacy of Greek and Roman literature, art, and culture. We there have a minimal stub, currently, that cites one of the same sources cited here: more could be added on that topic also. The two subjects seem fairly distinct in my mind, and this title is ambiguous in current English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • An article on political anti-Greek tendencies was what was there before and got deleted in 2007. See the previous AfD about why I think having those articles is an exceedingly bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand where you are coming from. On the other hand, there are many, many such articles already, some much better than others. I could easily live with a redirection to anti-Classicism, at least until such time as someone wants to try their hand at writing a reasonable article about anti-Greek prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Except that Anti-Classicism will have to be written first. Currently it's a sub-stub with even less usable content than this one, hacked together from a single random undigested factbite. It contains not even a dictionary definition. (I guess I needen't comment on the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS of the first part of your argument.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Probably - though there surely is enough material out there to write an article on the rejection of classical culture; the fact that the current article is not very good does not de-legitimize the topic itself. I guess what I am saying is that, if this article is deleted, it should be without prejudice if someone wants to try their hand at recreating it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. First of all this article was made by a Greek, who, with good intentions, apparently wanted to present everything that could fall into the supposed anti-Hellenic category:
    From the supposed "dark side of Classicism-Hellenism" -where some site misquotes a book that misquotes Oscar Wilde about some supposed "intellectual paradox" when it really is some reactionary "cool" "anti-conformism" against Philhellenism,
    to that of anti-Hellenism as in "against the Hellenic nation". 2. It is undeniable that Greeks, like many nations, have been through wars and massacres but still in all these wars we can't find something distinctively anti-Greek apart from nations trying to dominate over each other. 3. Fut.Perf. is right to be worried that it may turn into a big national story of "unjustified persecution" etc etc because of what he has seen in other anti- articles. Btw, some anti-nation articles are in fact good with many truths and explanations but i don't think anti-Hellenism could ever be something more than a stub or a retarded story-telling OR.. though because i trust the dignity of Greeks i think it would stay as the dumb stub we see now forever.
    4. i am a Greek as the creator of the article is. and i too have rolled my eyes in all those articles who, as Fut. said, "wallow in the national feeling of injustice and victimization" etc.. and i certainly don't want to see my nation's name amongst them.. 5. There is no bibliography about this anyway. the article has been deleted again and created again and stayed there for some time and still it did not seem to become even a half-decent stub. KILL IT. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11: spam. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Al-Kasir IFV for Counter-Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is uncited and a Google search for Al-Kasir IF, Al-Kasir infantry fighting vehicle and Al-Kasir vehicle does not return any reliable sources or many hits at all. The vehicle in the picture in the article is clearly not an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). As such, this fails WP:V and WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. and salted Mgm| 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Angus the Ant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unpublished and unfinished book. No claims to notability (yet), perhaps worth recreating if/when book gets published. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Tough close, a few of the keeps has invalid reasoning so I discounted that. The article doesn't currently meet sourcing guideline therefore I'm deleting it, DHowell has a good but faulty reasoning. If we remove all the plot from this article, it would be only a sentence long, also it needs sources for real world content. Also these fiction AFDs need to stop They should be discussed for a merge in the talk page first unless it's too obvious, not OMG lets nominate one of them for AFD to see the drama happens, and it's usually by the same people as well. That won't work here. Secret 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainframe (C.O.P.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I hate to pull WP:WAX, but many other series - cartoon and otherwise - have articles about individual characters. I think that sets a precedent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't make any claim that no fictional character may have an article, but those that do, must meet the relevant policies and guidelines. If there are others that need to be deleted, this is not the place to discuss them, they get their own discussions. Jay32183 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources that can establish notability on its own. Also seems like *ahem* original research and overdetailed plot summary. MuZemike (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is my article! I don't understand why you decided to delete the article when it's as good informative as it can get. Obviously this is a sign that I need to improve my articles. Update: I put in reference to Mainframe sharing her codename with GI Joe member Blaine Parker. And didn't you notice I put links to youtube videos below the article that has the episodes containing references to what I wrote? Apparently not.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The episodes are primary sources, we need secondary sources. The "source" you just added has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The article has no sourced real world context, and no significant coverage. Since plot information must support the real world information, the plot cannot be claimed as significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- This biography of a fictional character does not assert any real-world notability through reliable secondary sources. All the sources are primary ones. Notability of a fictional character is not inherited from the work of fiction they appear in. Reyk YO! 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. I'm not too impressed with arguments based on lack of sources; this is a character from a late-1980s series so sources aren't going to be online. However because about 2/3 of the article is plot summary perhaps the encyclopedic parts of this and the other characters' articles could be merged to a single article about characters in C.O.P.S. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently a major character in a major series, and that is enough justification, since anything written about the series will inevitably discuss her. If it comes to that, I do not think the GNG is rationally applicable to fictional characters. It may be applicable to other things, but these are an exception. We;'ve had enough conflicts here to show how useless a criterion it is for this sort of topic. DGG (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually the GNG would be fine if people didn't improperly synthesize it with other policies and guidelines in order to advance their position that coverage of fiction should be vastly reduced in Knowledge. The words "real world context" appear nowhere in the notability guideline; any wording of that sort appears in guidelines about how articles should be written, not about whether they should be written. Works of fiction which are not self-published are reliable sources for the characters and elements described within, the reliable source guideline even explicitly says that "for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction". As long as only descriptive claims are made that can be verified by anyone with access to the work of fiction, it is not original research. Finally, when multiple writers write fictional stories about a fictional character, as is the case with the main characters of most major TV series, that is independent coverage of the subject. "Independent" means independent of the subject, not independent of the subject's owner, unless we are also going to argue that Time magazine is not an independent reliable source for information about a Warner Bros. film, because they are both owned by Time Warner. This article meets the relevant content policies; any alleged deficiences re WP:NOT#PLOT are solved by trimming plot summary or expanding real-world context, not by deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:PLOT specifically requires real-world context in all articles. If it isn't supporting real world context, then the plot has to be cut to nothing. Things need to be notable in the real world, not the fictional world. That's why significant coverage of real world context is required. Playing policies against each other is acting in bad faith, while working them together is not. We're supposed to follow all the policies, which means combining them. Jay32183 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DHowell. Policies are meant to help building WP. Applying them is not a goal in itself. Interpreting them as "everything fiction must be destroyed NOW" is misguided. Laurent paris (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • No one is interpreting it as destroying all fiction, except the people arguing to keep. We can have articles on fictional things, but they must be from the perspective of the real world, and require sources supporting that content. See Jason Vorhees for example. It meets the criteria that this article doesn't. Or even Lionel Luthor; it meets the criteria too. Jay32183 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • But the destruction of most fiction articles is exactly what's happening. The Lionel Luthor is a good example of what's wrong with this deletionist policy. The character is not more notable outside of fiction than those nominated. Most of the article is a collection of plot details that wouldn't pass Knowledge:Not#plot, except they're riddled with sources, most of which are primary. By the same logic, it should be deleted. So escaping deletion is really a popularity contest. Laurent paris (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Escaping deletion is decided by WP:NOTE. Trying to say that the goal of any AfD on a fictional subject is that "everything fiction must be destroyed NOW" is plainly silly and ludicrous. Show two, hell even one source that demonstrates notability and you have a solid argument instead of the rather empty statement you have now. — sephiroth bcr 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I was addressing Jay32183's Lionel Luthor example. This article certainly doesn't pass Knowledge:Not#plot or even WP:NOTE as interpreted in most AfDs, but for some reason I don't see it being deleted anytime soon. Hence my popularity contest comment. And before calling my arguments silly and ludicrous (way to go, admin) when did I say the goal of just any AFD on a fictional subject was to delete all fiction? I don't think WP policies should be ignored, just that deleting every substandard article on sight, which seems to be the primary activity of some editors here is misguided. Assessment and tags should be enough. (But on a side note, I do think WP:NOTE is fundamentally wrong and that the deletionist zealots are destroying what made WP so great in the first place, this from a reader PoV) Laurent paris (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No refs and this sort of thing is too vulnerable to OR and interpretation. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OR is a reason to clean-up not delete.
I actually said "vulnerable to OR", as in the article's subject. No amount of promised clean-up can stop fans from interjecting their own thoughts or interpretations. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
That's an even worse argument for deletion. Anything can be "vulnerable" to OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"Anything" ay? That's a bit of sensationalist statement, I'd like to see you add some of your own thoughts and interpretations to George Bush's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Platinum Collection (Eminem album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable bootleg album. By the way, I know I am going to receive another bot saying that this is an incomplete Afd...thanks Twinkle! — Do U(knome)? or no 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Protonk as G10. TGH1970 (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article was written as vandalism by associates of Jarin Udom (see here) to demean and harass both Udom and his failed company on Knowledge. Most of the article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic and goes to great lengths gleefully pointing out that Podtats failed. None of the other sources mention the term "Podtats," or Udom or his business. The only sources that do either trace to jarinudom.com or a cached version of podtats.com, neither of which actually support the sentence they're sourced to. All the rest of it serves essentially as an advertisement for iPod engraving businesses. TGH1970 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays (Enuff Z'nuff song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I fear that this song might not be quite notable enough for inclusion. While the band who created it is most definitely notable. The song itself may not be so. A search turns up few notable results to establish notability. Thanks.

WP:NOTABILITY  Marlith (Talk)  04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This is just another housing estate. There is no assertion of notability: no firsts, no largest, just exists. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Or the little complex I lived in when I was in college... No, this is taking notability a bit too far; it isn't THAT inherent. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced bio of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in a Canadian provincial election. Was previously tagged for prod, but a person who has never previously edited Knowledge, except for one single edit to this very same article approximately six months earlier, replaced that with an "under construction" tag and then proceeded to abandon the article again even though that tag is explicitly meant only for articles that are being worked on in an immediate way. The "references" at the bottom of the article aren't about the subject, but simply links to the web pages of organizations mentioned in the article, none of which mentions Mr. Gallant at all — so it fails both WP:N and WP:RS as currently written. Delete unless real sources proving notability can be shown; there isn't even enough referenced content here to merge it anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: please type four tildes, to sign your messages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But where are the sources? Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Normally I would speedy this as a recreation of previously deleted material but since its been such a long time since then I will put up a new afd for it. Just as just as non-notable as she was last time she fell to afd. None of the sources support her notability, and in searching for other sources nothing comes up. Djsasso (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I concur, this article seems pointless. Pstanton 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete only in that it seems possible that there may be sources out there somewhere for a biography of this woman but I cannot find any in an admittedly speedy, lazy, google search. Your bringing it to AfD seems wise. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, since even with sources there is nothing of note about this person. Not every person, even if they really did exist and verifiably had jobs and passions, needs to have a WP entry. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I actually would vote "Keep" on this article if the sources given supported the claims. It's easy for us today to forget how significant things were like being "the first woman on a medical faculty" She ostensibly received the Order of Canada, but that too I think is not supported by any reputable source. Combine all the claims and I think she scrapes across the notability threshold, were said claims properly supported. Unschool 07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the website which makes the Order of Canada claim is confusing that with the Canada Council, for what it's worth (especially because it states Canada Council in the text and then merely captions the accompanying photo with a claim that she's receiving the OC). Just to clarify in case anybody here doesn't know the difference, the Canada Council is a federal arts granting organization to which appointment should, at least in theory, be notable enough for our purposes if it's properly referenced, but being named to the OC means you're being given an award, while being named to the Canada Council means you're being given a job. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe that this person has achieved notability. (Being a city councillor, or a Canada Council member, is enough for me). Articles should be sourced, but I'd prefer to leave this up and let someone find the sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is sad that a person from Thunder Bay would consider deleting Rita Ubriaco. I did know her more than most and saw her humility resulted in lack of striving for publicity, and a more concern for doing public good. To repeat what Richard said, "I believe that this person has achieved notability. (Being a city councillor, or a Canada Council member, is enough for me."....me too ! --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • First off, where I am from is irrelevant, she is non-notable as she fails WP:BIO and WP:V, until you can bring forth third party reliable sources that proove otherwise. And to quote from WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". -Djsasso (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, it doesn't necessarily prevent it, either — a city councillor certainly can have an article if there are sufficient reliable sources to support one. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh I realize that, I was just rebutting their opinion that just being one was good enough. I have already stated the article lacks sources. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable ? She was many, many things...city councillor, ran in a provincial electon, honored with many things...and she was not notable ? Others can't find 'sources'... Seems we have a political agenda here ? Has anyone checked to see if (like the radical lesbians having an antimale agenda) that we have the reverse here ? I would check the sources ! --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Reliable sources. Being a city councillor does not mean she is automatically notable, same with running in a provincial election. There is no political agenda here, and you always claim there is an agenda when people disagree with your opinion which is contrary to WP:AGF. If you think she is notable then you need to find sources that meet WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong e0vidence I use to "assume" that most people would operate in Good Faith...however, when i see the resistence to items like the Montreal Massacre to simple truths, there is no doubt an agenda...in some cases there is not... Someday, we will look back on some of the edits and some of the 'attacks' to allowing certain edits and understand that some people do not operate on the basis of good faith, fairness, justice and The Truth of the matter...as best we can know of it....keep up the 'battle' for The Truth...I still say she is quite notable...if the Mayor can be listed, and so should the councillor....they both have the same voting power on council...not like the PM and MP's in the Canadian Parliament...that is another story...Just printing my opinion under my real name for future reference...Remember there are some people who are 'politically incorrect' and who history does not record because the 'source writers' will not accept them....--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Caesar J.B. Squitti, please do not take the lack of notability personally or as equal to lack of importance. WP:Notability has a specific meaning in Knowledge meaning, simply, that there are a lack of sources, in other words, have not been "noted" by Reliable sources. FWIW, though I am unfamiliar with Ubriaco, from the article and brief google search I did, it appears to me that she was indeed an honourable and giving important person who helped to enrich the community. In Knowledge, that does not make a biography eligible for an article, however. Among our most important pillars are the Core content policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:No original research. Regards, DoubleBlue (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay...found three new links including directing for the Cambrian Players, designing and directing for the national stage, and a relationship with Dr. Penny Petrone....--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately those are just trivial mentions, the sources have to be articles about the person. And atleast one of the sites is a site you yourself edit. -Djsasso (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The others include the CBC, etc....Her involvment in Saint Anthony's Fire....well I was the Church Parish council secretary....(thats credible info from the inside...would you not say ?) You bring up a good point, what about people who don't use their real names, what sources do they or their spouses include ? --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And the CBC link as I mentioned is only trivial, it mentions her in passing that she will be a guest on the show, it does not talk about her. And yes you were inside, however you might be full of "point of view" as you would violate WP:COI if you were to write something about St. Anthonys on Wiki. Secondly. whether I use my real name on here or not doesn't matter, because I can't use myself as a source, I need I use reliable sources in articles. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for not clarifying....We don't know some contributors real names, and their connection to the so-called reliable source ? That is a challenge. I would not consider myself in a conflict of interest, nor a point of view, merely the only view in this matter. Anyway we are learning many important truths about sources...--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are making no sense, what sources are you talking about? Did you read the link to see what a reliable source is? ie a major newspaper, a magazine etc etc. Contributers are not sources. -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters of The Edge Chronicles

The Edge Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep and clean-up/rewrite the main The Edge Chronicles article and articles on the individual books in the series. The series satisfies WP's notability guidelines – the books have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (Google News hits) and they've been listed in the children's section of the New York Times Best Seller list (ref). No opinion on the subsidiary articles related to the series; they can probably be consolidated into list articles or subsections in the main series article. --Muchness (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - in light of this listing's modified scope, I suggest closing and starting merge/cleanup work on the relevant articles, per Starblind's reasoning that some coverage of these aspects of a notable series is appropriate. Any leftover cruft can be relisted at a later date. --Muchness (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm an AfD idiot, so maybe this isn't a "policy" reason, but it just seems to me that if all of the books in the series merit articles, then why wouldn't the umbrella article? Unschool 07:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I see—you want all of the related articles deleted too. I just don't see it--a series that has had about 10 books published thus far seems more notable than a lot of other stuff I see in here. Unschool 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A look through Google revealed that there is a large amount of interest for this book series, and several of the books are NYT bestsellers. Although I cannot sort out the amateur reviews from the professional ones right now, a hit like this, from the Daily Telegraph, should establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You might want to suggest merging for a bunch of character articles, but there's no possible way for me to delete a New York Times Bestseller. AFD is not a way to force cleanup. - Mgm| 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Additional note: A lack of references is not in itself a reason for deletion. It is when the unreferenced material is potentially harmful to a living person or when no sources can be found after reasonable attempts. It's very unlikely to no level of material can be salvaged here. - Mgm| 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I changed the nomination to better reflect my real intentions: to delete all child articles (characters, places, etc.) and NOT the main article about the novel. Hope that clarifies. Renata (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since this is a long-running book series which has shown up on bestseller lists, some coverage of characters is reasonable and necessary. Some articles like the plants one could probably go, but should be relisted seperately. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Nominator admits that the named article is not the one to be deleted. 'All related articles' is too broad; separate nominations are needed for each article or group of articles, clearly listing which ones are included. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (or improve) - The fact that this is a NY Times best seller belongs in the article, not just as part of this discussion or out on the 'net waiting for a search engine to discover it. Many have opined to keep, but no one has improved the article. If no one is willing to add needed material to the article so that it stands on its own, then flush it. - Boston (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and have a suitable discussion on what should be merged. I don't think all of them would really be appropriate for articles, but this isn't the place to discuss the details, and it will talk more than 5 days to work it all out. this is a drastic violation of the rule against nominating together items likely to be of different notability. It's the first time I've ever seen a deletion by category without even listing the articles specifically--this is not the way to promote rational discussion. DGG (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss a merger, then bring back the articles to AfD that really don't cut it. The category contains novels, characters and what do I know, and all of them have different inclusion criteria. – sgeureka 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as an improper nomination, as the individual articles proposed for deletion were neither named nor tagged. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chillicothe,Ohio Aerial Photo's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge articles aren't really meant to serve as image galleries. It'd make sense to add these photos (when/if they come 'round) to articles on the area, but I don't see why they need their own separate article. Vianello (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A user account has to be autoconfirmed (established for four days and ten edits) to upload images to WP. Commons has no such restriction, so the author of this article can go there and upload the photos now if he wants. There are no images here to transwiki at the moment, so my "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise that as I didn' try and upload an image till I'd been on here for several months..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Based on available sources (which, in the case of reliable third-party sources, appear not to exist), this man is not notable. Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. Biruitorul 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Tagged for notability and prodded in June 2007. Prod was declined but no real improvement happened since then. Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to So You Think You Can Dance — Scandinavia. MBisanz 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Poorly written bio of a dancer who competed for a short period in a reality show/dancing contest. Punkmorten (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That is an opinion which is not based in policy. - Mgm| 09:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Music group with no 3rd party references to establish notability (the one ref is to the site of the recording studio); the initial edit of the article shows that their CD has very limited distribution (which it was promoting). The article has been independently cleaned up since creation, but the group still appears to be non-notable. Ros0709 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC's band section. They have no notable members, haven't been nominated for a major award, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

VERY STRONG KEEP There appears to be an antipsytrance contingent on Knowledge, trying to get articles on this genre deleted. Texas Faggott are very notable, ask any UK psytrance fan and they will probably have one or two of their albums. They are also one of the main suomisaundi bands. I urge you all to keep this article. Tris2000 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to show the band's notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus. Original close overturned by this deletion review. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Trek. This is a difficult close I will admit, however, after carefully reviewing the arguments, I would say those proponents of redirection and deletion base their arguements more strongly in concerns of notability outside of those individuals who use wikis and in reliable sourcing concerns. The keep arguments seem more towards inherent notability of a website many of us use as a result of our participation in Knowledge and not in our notability system. MBisanz 01:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Previous afd's for this site were usually shot down as being WP:POINTy. Seriously, though, let's look at the sources.Almost every single one is a source from the site itself, with a couple forum links and even an Uncyclopedia page; definitely not reliable sources. The two news references cited are general articles on Wikis and do not devote a significant amount of space to Memory Alpha at all. Given the almost total lack of substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, I see no way that this wiki meets WP:WEB. The last AfD pointed to the fact that Star Trek books mention this wiki, but apparently they are only trivial mentons as well, usually just citing a fact from it and not saying more. The last AfD also had "keep" !votes without any actual rationale attached (including, um, one of my own). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The sources provided by Uncle G and Raitchison seem to me to be reasonable coverage. Yes, the article may be over-detailed with unsourced stuff at the moment and could use some rewriting; but I'm pretty confident that this wiki is notable enough to satisfy WP:WEB on the back of the books and reviews provided. Additionally, JulesH's point about the difficulty of finding reliable sources amongst the huge amounts of other stuff is an argument in itself: even if one argues that this doesn't technically satisfy the wording of the notability guideline, this is clearly the primary source of canon Star Trek information on the internet and is very widely used. It certainly feels, to me, to be notable as per the spirit of the guideline. ~ mazca 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • So basically you're saying WP:USEFUL, WP:BIG, WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. I simply don't see how this passes WP:WEB as the sources named are all trivial. Trivial sources put together, as Rividian says, do not create a non-trivial source. It just doesn't pass the criteria as of right now. I ask that the closing admin keeps this in mind. DARTH PANDA 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with the panda. Several trivial sources aren't nearly as helpful as even one non-trivial source. Anyone arguing for a keep seems to be thinking either that the house will build itself or is just saying "but, but, but it's the biggest Star Trek wiki, how can you POSSIBLY delete it?!" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I'd certainly agree that some (or even most) of the content in the article needs to be sourced or removed. But having just a quick look at some of the sources readily available (ie a Google News search), I'm seeing one fairly substantial entry . Certainly most other mentions are trivial, but given that this seems to be pretty much the number one example choice for a newspaper article about fan wikis it seems to me to be worth at least a stubby article to describe it. I'm arguing for common-sense application of the notability guideline here. This is far from exemplary as far as website articles go, but it certainly seems in my view to be worth including. ~ mazca 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep per User:Mazca -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Memory Alpha has had nontrivial coverage in the Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying WP:N. (I note that its Alexa rating is 24787. Is that good?) Edison (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Your estimation is merely that--your estimation. This is not a Rorschach test where you must produce associations as to what a stimulus makes you think of. I stated that I judged the references to be sufficient. I am certainly entitled to my own opinion. Is it necessary for those favoring one viewpoint in a deletion debate to chime in, in counterpoint to the views of everyone with a different opinion? If you have had your say, why not let it stand without endless repetitions. I am hardly an "inclusionist" in general. Edison (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Might I comment, then, that the lower the Alexa rating, the more popular the site? A 24787 isn't a very good score then. I obviously didn't want to say such a thing, as I am personally exhibiting WP:BIG, so feel free to ignore this comment! DARTH PANDA 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep MA is a well-known website especially for trekkies: etc. The Google Page Rank is 5 — STAR TREK Man 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per inclusion of better sourcing and other fix-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is Knowledge, not Wiki.
  • I'm disturbed by that hurtful and unjustified accusation of bad faith, DGG. You're normally better than that. Nobody is on a mission to remove coverage of fictional topics from the encyclopedia, it's just that some of us would like to see articles about fiction held to the same standards and policies as the rest of Knowledge. Reyk YO! 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant it as a general comment that this was illustrative of a trend. I certainly did not mean you were on such a mission, and I apologize for that.I see the wording did come out wrong. DGG (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see it as levelled at me in particular, but at delete-leaning editors in general. But all is good now. Cheers. Reyk YO! 01:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. So many here are clearly against deletion so I'm posing a question (though this may not be appropriate for this forum). Does the ARTICLE deserve to exist? I'm almost sure some of the content should remain (which is why I suggested a merge/redirect). DARTH PANDA 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to bold the word "keep" here because what I am going to say is not really supported by policy right now but I found it interesting that one editor said his search for sources was hindered by an assload of forum and blog postings mentioning the subject. As I recently said on Talk:Godwin's Law in response to someone who thought WP was "creating culture", the intent of WP:N is to make sure nothing becomes notable because of Knowledge. It should not be possible to say nobody knew me/us/it/them from Adam until we got a WP article. If something is mentioned in enough forums, blogs, and Usenet groups independent of each other, I would say that it has become notable and therefore an article on that subject wouldn't significantly increase the level of the subject's notability. However, such a standard, if ever adopted, should never be applied to BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Asserts notability and it took me less than a minute to find several books that discuss this resource. Google scholar has a few more. -- Banjeboi 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. This one (and another one) leave no ambiguities. I like the In fact, the Star Trek wiki is one of the most impressive out there! remark :-) It is true and well-known among trekkers that MA has many more informations than startrek.com in specialized fields like technology and vessels ... It would have been a shame this article disappear from WP: it gives meta-informations onto it that you cannot find elsewhere, thanks to WP. — STAR TREK Man 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. For those trying to suss out the history this is actually the fifth AfD with all previous four AfD's keeps after this featured article had been demoted. Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 2 and Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3 are the same AfD. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This was not at all difficult, nor comprehensive. Knowledge would without question be a poorer encyclopaedia with the removal of this article. This discussion shows a typical failure to consider an article's potential, rather than current state. Skomorokh 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

as per WP:BLP1E. she is only really related to the health department controversy. other information such as being a failed political candidate really is not notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

She is notable as an aspiring political figure who got a decent amount of coverage and as being involved in a scandal. I feel she fits the prerequisites of notability. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment it doesn't how matter how many times they run, there is really little coverage of her unsuccessful attempts. Also I imagine there are very few WP articles devoted to unsuccessful candidates no matter what party they ran for. try looking up unsuccessful candidates from your own local area. Unless they do something notable in life like a mayor they are unlikely to have an article.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
She is the subject of substantial secondary coverage which is the core criteria of WP:BIO. You are correct that even if she ran only once, WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply as "low profile" people do not run for major state legislative office for a major party. --Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"Someone who twice runs for New South Wales Legislative Assembly under a major party ticket (the Liberal party) is in no manner "low profile." You're kidding! Then you must think Glenn Brookes is not "low profile" either. Who? You know, Glenn Brookes. He contested the Electoral district of East Hills for the Liberal Party in 2003 and 2007. Just doesn't seem to have a Knowledge article yet. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems you're missing the point. WP:BLP1E is what the nom is citing as the reason to delete this article. WP:BLP1E was created so that private individuals who found themselves in the news through no intention of their own did not automatically have Knowledge articles about them in order to protect their privacy. That's why WP:BLP1E clearly states its intended for "low profile" people. When someone runs for a major legislative public office under a major party, they no longer are a private individual. Not familiar with Glenn Brookes, but maybe he wasn't the subject of multiple secondary sources and passing WP:NOTABILITY as Nola Fraser is. --Oakshade (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being a two-time losing candiate for local or regional office is not enough to make her notable, IMHO, but the addition of the whistleblowing stuff and subsequent media coverage combines to give her enough to keep this article, methinks. Unschool 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable whistleblower who subsequently ran for political office. What JoshuaZ said. Rebecca (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Dictionary definition with no indication of wide or notable usage. ZimZalaBim 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 *(UTC)
My quick Google search reveals ~800 hits, and none at first glance appear to be reliable sources. Which are you finding? --ZimZalaBim 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you please provide examples of the "coverage in multiple independent secondary sources". --ZimZalaBim 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I concluded based on the sources and external links in the article that this is a notable subject and that it would be better to expand and improve the article than to delete it. They aren't great sources, that's for sure. But they aren't horrible either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But what sources are they?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. All that's included in the article is a random definition on a low content amateur blog/website, and trivial mention in a random conference paper that was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. How are these sufficient to establish notability of what increasingly appears to be little more than a neologism. --ZimZalaBim 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Googlefight. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The phenomenon obviously exists as has been described: a) people google to prove which variant of a phrase is more popular, and b) this can be used by linguists and non-native speakers to study a language. I don't think anyone can argue with that. What may put people off is the apparent 'neologism'-like name of the article. So, how about a compromise. This article uses the phrase 'linguistic data mining' - could that be a new title for the article in question?


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

The result was redirect to List of Oingo Boingo band members. MBisanz 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dojo Toolkit. –Juliancolton 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Should be deleted per WP:NN. However, perhaps should merged with the Dojo Toolkit article. Message from XENU 16:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to be non notable. Editor (or former editor, sources are so poor it's unclear) of a minor magazine, IMHO that is insufficient for notability. Google throws up a number of Janice Chens, but there's no evidence that this one is especially notable. Page has been a stub for 2 years and nothing of note is there yet. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Epsilon Pi Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A non notable local fraternity. No reliables sources provided and none available on search. Nuttah (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This person may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. The final sentence of the article indicates that the article may contain an element of hoaxery or jokery. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

hello, on my research about agadi mohith, i found that he is an teenage boy who achieved a lot in IT field.

Regards, Somanath reddy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Since there is now evidence the field exists and the article is no longer considered gibberish, I'm closing this debate. Mgm| 09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Micro-linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOR. vfd on zh wp: zh:Knowledge:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2008/11/21#微观语言学 Shizhao (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The term "micro-linguistics" is very widely used--see the 156 hits in GScholar. However, as a non-expert, I am not at all sure this is the same meaning as this article. If it is, the article needs to be rewritten to show it; if not, a new article needs to be rewritten at this title.DGG (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Microlinguistics is a very legitimate branch of linguistics that has been under study for more than 50 years. But the article, written in extremely garbled manner, does not in any way explicitly describes what the branch deals with or what comprises of such study. There is some attempt to describe study of Chinese language in this relation, but it is extremely incoherent, incomplete and limited. As much I would like to see an article on the subject to be present in Knowledge, I don't think the article in its present state can be kept. There is a need of writing a completely new article, preferably by an expert. Sleaves talk 17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. What was here seemed to be bad machine translation from Chinese. I think the subject valid, so I replaced it with a very minimal stub. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This "Micro-linguistics" not "Microlinguistics"--Shizhao (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference? Sleaves talk 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--speaking purely as a grammarian, this is an interesting and worthwhile topic. User:Ihcoyc did an admirable job reducing the gibberish to a very readable and expandable stub (kudos!), and this article can be kept. And perhaps it will miraculously appear in all the languages for which one of its earlier editors added interlanguage links. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, perhaps you all can weigh in on this, what about this article by one of the editors of the article currently under discussion? Drmies (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Silent Hill characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Plot summary of the character's involvement in the film and first game, and a supposition for the third. Research hasn't turned up anything to support notability, and there's nothing to merge. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the character list. I'm extremely far from convinced that the list itself is necessary, it's serving no purpose outside of what could be dealt with in the plot sections of individual game articles, but since Dahlia is one of the few recurring characters throughout the games and film there's at least a chance some info could eventually be found on her. Someoneanother 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Laurene Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable model and actress. Schuym1 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, this should have been WP:CSD, meets A7. Message from XENU 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That is called a WP:STUB and not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm| 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No one besides one single person has yet explain why they consider this person non-notable. Before any sort of consensus is determined, we need well-reasoned !votes that explain lines of reasoning. - Mgm| 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has not had significant roles on multiple notable films etc. Tassedethe (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. By WP:BIO only source in article that discusses her at any length is the canoe.ca website link, which isn't enough to indicate notability, IMO. I've not been able to find any further sources. I've checked all the results of a google search for "Sarah Laurene Jackson", which didn't turn up any reliable sources, and similarly '"Sarah Jackson" canadian model' on Google news. If other sources can be found, I'll re-consider my !vote. I don't think she passes WP:ENTERTAINER either, based on her minor role on Deal or No Deal, or her single film role. Silverfish (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. See also #Rosalie Howarth. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's taken care of. Even if it were referenced, it would still be utterly trivial--unless his show is about boating, of course, which it might well be (few relevant facts ever made it into the article). Drmies (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails to meet any guideline criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Although limited by Danish illiteracy, my searching found no indication of album releases, published reviews, or significant awards, competitions, or media attention for the band and none is claimed in the article. Their MySpace page still works, but appears moribund. Frankly, the article looks like it could qualify for a CSD A7. However, playing gigs in Copenhagen at "small concert venues" might be interpreted as important or significant, and the article is well over a year old (August 2007) with active editors touching the content, so it's being listed here. Michael Devore (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Gargoyles characters. MBisanz 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This doesn't seem to be an official term used to differentiate this series from the rest of the Super Robot Wars series, so this just seems to be original research. Even if it does turn out to be an official term, it can easily fit in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the related trivial list:
Designers of the Banpresto Originals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of Nambassa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY, this is just a big image repository. hbent (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Green Lanterns#Kai-ro. to finalize the merge done. Mgm| 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kai-ro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Galactik Football. This could've been done as a BOLD redirect. Black Kite 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Galactik Football through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail. TTN (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Dick Miller. Black Kite 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This is just a collection of minor characters in films that share the same name without any sources to provide any sort of connection. TTN (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge with Dick Miller. The fact he played a character with the same name on at least 4 occasions in different works of fiction might not be material for an article, but it certainly is worth including in the actor's bio. I have no reason to disbelieve IMDB on this. It's likely more reliable sources can be found. - Mgm| 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, merge the relevant information, per TTN and MGM. Drm| 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Move or redirect to Dick Miller. I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to gauge if "Walter Paisley" is much of a search term; Google doesn't support much of a claim to notability and so I'm leaning toward move, but I'll gladly agree to a redirect if folks who know the horror industry think the name is worth preserving. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added a highlight to the merge in above comment. Remember that we cannot delete the history if we retain material. According to the GFDL we need to retain it for proper attribution. - Mgm| 08:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here's a bunch of references to confirm at least part of this entry. - Mgm| 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Those sources amount to nothing; it's trivial coverage. The article still isn't worth keeping, or merging. Finding sources wouldn't aide a merge though, as they should be put directly into the main article, not stuck into this one first, just to game the system to preserve the history. Jay32183 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Trivial or not, it proves the information is true and verifiable (a lot of facts in wikipedia articles are referenced by trivial mentions because notability - which requires non-trivial mentions of the article subject - are already coverage by other sources). Preserving the history has nothing to do with gaming the system. Giving proper attribution for someone's edits is actually policy. (GFDL). - Mgm| 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Also, deletion policy states that deletion is a last resort for material that cannot be salvaged. It obviously can. - Mgm| 13:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
          • The GFDL is not an issue if no content is copied. If you're hoping for merge, adding content to this article and copying it to another would be extremely bad faith. Trivial coverage should not be included at all, non-trivial does not equal significant, it could be moderate. Also, lots of trivial does not add up to non-trivial. With this article deletion is the best option, we don't have to discuss everything, that's not what "last resort" means, and merging is not salvaging the article. Jay32183 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
            • It's salvaging the content rather than the article and providing proper credit to the person who started it. Sources only need to be non-trivial if they need to support a separate article. For example: if a source is trivial but mentions a subjects birthday (and the subject has been established as notable through other means) than the trivial source can still be used to verify the birth date. - Mgm| 09:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I do not see how combining the different roles in unrelated films is helpful, unless there is sourced discussion of the repeated use of the name. If he is a major character in any of them, it might justify an article, &, if the other roles are minor, they could be mentioned there. DGG (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded; it has been pointed out to me on my talk page that there appears to be a discussion of the significance of the character itself in its different manifestations at . The article would need considerable expansion to clarify the significance. DGG (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — A notable in-joke, like See You Next Wednesday or Chuck the Plant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: Jay32183 (talk · contribs) is making up policy, see User_talk:MacGyverMagic#Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Walter Paisley (2nd nomination) He said: "Since the original author could not be bothered to find sources for the content, s/he does not deserve credit. We should not preserve the content. If you have sources for expanding another article do that, don't copy this and see if the sources match up. Jay32183 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)" - Mgm| 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not the least bit relevant to how this discussion should be closed. I did not present that to you as policy. I told you that because you're trying to preserve content that we don't want to use and that simply does not make sense. You didn't want this as a stand alone article either and without sources there's nothing to merge. Adding sources just to merge the article doesn't make sense when you could use the sources to expand the target article directly. It's actually easier that way, there's less double-checking. Trying to sway the AFD because someone involved made comments elsewhere is wholly inappropriate. Jay32183 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It might be easier, but since you are saying I shouldn't be doing that either just because the original author didn't provide sources, your comment on my talk page was relevant. - Mgm| 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I said to go ahead and expand Dick Miller based on what you found. You plan to list your sources and not add any of your own research. What I don't want you to do is to try and retroactively justify this content. But go ahead and create your own. Just do it at Dick Miller and not Walter Paisley since you aren't trying to preserve a stand-alone article. Jay32183 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the above comment, I've struck my accusation. It seems to no longer be relevant. - Mgm| 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; more or less synthesis of several unrelated characters who happen to have the same name. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/redirect. This does seem to be an inside joke of sorts for Dick Miller but the entire article would be a well written subsection of Dick Miller as it doesn't seem that notable on its own. Other sourcing interviews may pop up to further explain notability but the content can grow in that article which is quite stubby. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge/redirect. For the reasons mentionned above. Laurent paris (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Reminds me of Earl McGraw. Could do with some "fleshing out" tho, few more refs and definitely some more commentary from Dick Miller. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This article is essentially based on just one source—the camp's website. Since there is no third party sources, I hold that the camp is not notable and the article should be deleted (with all my regret). Ruslik (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Life Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable summer camp, fails WP:ORG, no sourcing to indicate notability. TastyPoutine 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep- It seem alright, it isn't particularly notable, or have outside sources. But WHERE would you find outside sources for something like this in any event. It isn't a terrible article, it could be alright in my opinion with a re-write and more sources, a deletion is probably extreme
So your rationale is that the camp isn't notable and sources to establish notability are not likely to be found but we should keep the article anyway because it ain't so bad? TastyPoutine 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If you can't find outside reliable sources then it fails the general notability guideline. Secondly, WP:NOHARM isn't a reason either for keep. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A summer camp would generally neither notable or verifiable enough for an article, and the fact that this one is padded out with straight-off-the-brochure advertising copy and a dumb joke/hoax ("Hook Man") strongly suggests this one is no exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tried and the only thing I could come up with is this and this "New,Life,Ranch". As you can see 0 on Google and only 6 pieces from the local newspaper with 5 just mentioning the ranch. I even spent a couple hours going through a passive Google search, as shown here , and was only able to come up with the organization’s website - which I looked at for references - Phone listing - driving directions and Yellow page listings, along with a few blogs. I am more than happy to change my opinion, but I need something solid to do so. ShoesssS 16:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keep The camp is exceptionally notable and important to people living in Northeastern Oklahoma. Not having scholarly articles or press releases does not make in unworthy of a page. There are PLENTY of less wortyh articles on Knowledge that we do not need to be so worried about this one. NLR is THE overnight summer camp to attend in the area. It should stay simply so parents and campers can come look for it and learn something before or after their visit. Probably needs a more objective/appropriate rewrite, but otherwise represents an important summer institution to a specific region. JPGrigg (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to rewrite the article and leave it at your mercy, doing my best to prove notability. However, I am unsure of the standards (i have read them). Specifically, if "A summer camp would generally neither notable or verifiable enough for an article" then the article should be deleted. If, because it is a camp and retreat center it is inherently unnotible, and because the scope of notability is local (extending perhaps 5 hours driving time from NLR, i know of only two national citations, and they are in niche publications), then i see no reason to make the attempt. I guess what im getting at is trying to really understand what it takes to make something notable before i spend a lot of time on it, when the result is really already decided just by the nature of the organization. Anyway, my apologize if this is the wrong place for this discussion. (for the sake of full disclosure: i did not originate this article, but i did make some contributions. Also, i am an employee of NLR) Poolhouseblack (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest policy prevents you from voting in a deletion discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

michellencrisp, fair enough.75.121.19.32 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't have substantial media coverage it's not notable per our guidelines. Sometimes it's possible to improve an article to demonstrate notability (by adding referenced content), but subjects that don't meet the guidelines are difficult to "make notable". If there is news coverage you've missed, that might make a difference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

michellencrisp, fair enough. I will spend some time finding the references i know of and post them. 75.121.19.32 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • comment This discussion is in no way a reflection on the good qualities of the camp. Very few camps are included here. The ones that are have to be able to demonstrate notability based on substantial media coverage. Many "good" subjects don't get articles, many "bad" subjects do. I think the camp sounds like a wonderful place, but our policies don't support including it unless it meets Knowledge's notability guidelines. You may be able to put some of the information in other articles and redirect to one of them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑