Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 7 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Teams Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Record label that appears to fail the notability guideline for companies. After researching, I did not discover any reliable sources containing any information about the subject, nor did I find any sources at all that support the claims made in the article. Additionally, the user who created the article appears to have created another article on a record label, Da Kingdom Records, and after being deleted, recreated the page multiple times. – Alex43223 23:26, 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 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank E. Bittinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography. The article was speedily deleted earlier today, but the subject restarted his article soon after. Google returns a minimal amount of hits (like less than 90). CyberGhostface (talk) 23:24, 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 merge to Zoids:_Genesis#Zoids. MBisanz 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 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 merge to Zoids:_Genesis#Zoids. MBisanz 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Since there are no sources cited at the article, it would help your case if you could either add them or provide links here. With over 200 of these things, it hard to imagine the individuals having notability independent of the broader subject.Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 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 Zoids: Chaotic Century. MBisanz 02:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional locations does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:04, 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 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

"Created to support the Community Equity Open Source project". Blatant original research / use of Knowledge as a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 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 redirect to Zoids: Chaotic Century. MBisanz 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional locations does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:03, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoids Customise Parts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of trivial fictional weapons does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:00, 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 redirect to Zoids: Genesis. MBisanz 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

TTN obviously didn't read the article. Zoids are characters, not weapons. - Mgm| 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zoids: Genesis. Even when no one bothers to cut down and merge a reduced amount of plot information to a character list, the name still remains a valid search term, so a redirect would be in order.- Mgm| 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Being a likely search term is not a reason to preserve the history of bad content; redirects can be creates after deletion. Whether the subject is a character or a weapon is irrelevant to this discussion, but being familiar with this fictional work, I think weapon is more accurate. Jay32183 (talk) 23:19, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Redundant and unnecessary content fork. Speedied and prodded once. OhNoitsJamie 22:39, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable autobiography. I couldn't find much to support his claims, or anything about him really on the internet. Nothing showed up on Google for him. "Kari Shaka Thompson" only returns Knowledge, and I searched for "Kari Shaka Thompson" and "Kari Thompson" along with "At World's End" to see if there was any truth to his claim that he had a starring role in the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but nothing on that end either. CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just checked the article, and apparently he changed his name as well. I entered that through Google as well, but still came up with nothing.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:05, 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 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is not about the article title. Instead, it is about a theory in astrophysics that the subject has co-written. The author of this article has a troubled relationship with the community (see the user's talk page). Richard Cavell (talk) 22:01, 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 Speedy Delete by Ohnoitsjamie. Lenticel 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I am proposing this article be deleted because it appears to fail the notability standard defined in Knowledge:Notability (music). According to the article the musical ensemble in question has yet to even release an album; this appears to be a vanity article. When/If the group achieves notability the article can be re-created. Naufana : talk 21:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Completely non-notable and generally un-necessary as an article. Commercial. Technosenior (talk) 20:53, 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 speedy delete. G2, test page Mgm| 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This does not fall under any CSD. However, it ought to be deleted as the subject matter is not notable enough for inclusion. The subject appears to be a personality created by a person within a computer game. There is no indication that the fictional personality has any relevance outside the author's installation of the computer game, or that it has achieved notability. The achievements described for this fictional character appear only to have been achieved by the author of the article in the context of the computer game. Richard Cavell (talk) 20:58, 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 02:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mr. Men Show (UK Version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is almost an exact duplicate of The Mr. Men Show. I have no idea of the reasoning for the fork, since the show is the same in the USA as it is in the UK, with the only differences being voice actors and titles. The original The Mr. Men Show did indicate the differences, and I see no reason why it cannot continue to do so. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Delete. I was just going to prod this. A complete duplication without any indication why a separate article is needed. --Escape Orbit 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary duplication. Wiw8 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article as differences between US and UK versions of the mr men show have since been erased from the parent article. Fruit.bmp (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Of course the UK version is the original version, so if there was a split it should really take the primary namespace, but since theres not enough here to justify two articles it should be deleted the original article should be repaired. Artw (talk) 00:36, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-notable minor villain. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The article should probably be renamed though, since this DCAU character does not have a comics counterpart. Artw (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • He has only had two major appearances and one minor appearance. Even if he was a major character, the article still needs sources that shows why the character is independently notable. If I put an unreferenced template on it, the article would most likely sit around forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll give this a "keep" vote if someone puts some references in. Also I agree with Artw about a name change, can that be done whilst at AFD? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:46, 10 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. G3, WP:NFT Mgm| 10:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced nonsense. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:52, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This page sound like an advertisement or a catalogue. It only include a list of model numbers. This type of content is very unencyclopedic and it shouldn't be included in Knowledge. Fangfufu (talk) 19:51, 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 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright bloody hell guys, steady on, point taken, "you disagree" lol! I didn't mean "wait to see if his notability increased", I meant; somebody may expand the article in the future, even if he is a minor role actor. Mind, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if this article is deleted, it's not in my usual field of interest. Right, I'm off to create a List of pokemon characters that may like Star Wars ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable actor. A Google News Archive search returns no results. The sources added by Seren are not reliable sources. An IMDb link and a link to the homepage of a movie this individual had a role hardly shows notability. In fact, the IMDb link shows he's fairly new to the acting business. He's only been in 2 episodes of Sons of Anarchy and probably played only a minor role. Ryan's comments are completely wrong. There are plenty of biographies of non-notable living people in CAT:CSD and the majority gets deleted. This individual may someday be notable but that's crystal balling. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete keeping information just in case someone gets notable is the function of a directory. IMdB is a directory. DGG (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - appearances in two episodes of a TV series and arole in a movie that never got made is not something that is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When the Cat's Away (cartoon short) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Mickey Mouse short. A Google search for "When the cat's away""Mickey mouse" returns only 1,030 results, the vast majority of which are from comprehensive websites like imdb or The Big Cartoon Database, blogs, or things unrelated to this film, and as such it appears to fail WP:NF. Unscented (talk) 19:24, 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 keep. The two guidelines being cited support the coexistence of such lists with categories. The people who voted to delete did not cite policy at all. Mgm| 10:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of lists. This is surely what categories exist for? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep We have many lists of lists articles. The category cannot provide the grouping that this article does. And even if they duplicate, the WP:CLN guideline preaches peaceful coexistence. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:25, 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 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

High School Musical: El desafio (Mexico) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Not sure if this is a real movie. Cssiitcic (talk) 19:08, 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 speedy delete as blatant vandalism. ... discospinster talk 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

St Mungo's School for the mentally ill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article is a possible hoax (maybe even an attack article on similarly named schools). After much Google searching, all I've been able to come up with is a St. Mungo's Academy in Glasgow, a St. Mungo's High School in Falkirk, and a St. Mungo's Primary School (and of course the fictional hospital). If there is such a school, I see verifiability issues due to the lack of information found. Nick—/Contribs 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - This article was tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G3) by another editor as I was creating this AfD. However, I'm doubtful that it meets the criteria for blatant vandalism, so I continued to create the discussion. --Nick—/Contribs 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Head is supposed to be 'Mr Charles Von Dingleberry', I'd doubt anyone would find it. I've removed the links in Stoke-on-Trent and on the Template for Staffordshire schools too. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Found it. It's based on Thistley Hough High School - even the Ofsted number is copied. Case for speedy deletion? Peridon (talk) 19:10, 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 speedy delete (G12/G11) by Gwen Gale. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

International schools in japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Apparent hoax? After translating the tiny article from spanish, I googled for the name and can't find anything for this supposed leader in the Ecuadorian revolution (see Ecuadorian War of Independence). I am guessing that this is the name of the author (username begins with Adrian), who is perhaps pretty young judging by the spanish spelling mistakes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable film festival. A Google news archive search turned up nothing of substance, just trivial references, "the festival is occuring"-type announcements, and press releases. There have been complaints against the festival, but I would argue that not even the complaining makes it notable. Precious Roy (talk) 18:14, 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 no consensus. Secret 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Rouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a non notable evangelist. I find no evidence to support this article remaining. Paste 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Paste 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not make the original nomination, however I am also nominating the following related pages because Alexander Marshall is another evangelist of similar vein, again copied over from Brethrenpedia and without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.:
   :Alexander Marshall, Gospel Hall Pioneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :and duplicated article - Alexander Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
With apologies if this treads on toes, however I think one AfD wil do for both. Springnuts (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT – This is not treading on toes – this against procedure. First, you submit an additional article 4 days after the original nomination was posted. Remember, a AFD is usually only posted for 5 days. Hence, you are only giving the community 1 day to respond. NO! Second, it is about a separate individual. As it is about a separate individual – a separate article and the only tie in is that it mentions J.J. Rouse, how do you come to the conclusion that they should be reviewed in the same AFD? Also, have you considered the earlier opinion expressed, before you submitted this piece? Do you judge their responses for both articles? Or just the first? ShoesssS 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I made that point rather more gently below, and Springnuts has agreed that the additional nomination should be withdrawn, so there's no need to fly off the handle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Typical Monday response, on my end, not yours. I am sorry. ShoesssS 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes an evangelist "notable"? This particular evangelist helped to establish Gospel Hall assemblies in Canada. I'm not trying to be contrary... but what criteria are you looking for? Does he need to have established churches in a larger denomination? Sayworth

Reply- Are you sure that's the same person? The wiki article says he was from Ontario, while your links says Edmonton. I'm no expert on Canadian Geography, but I believe those two places are pretty far apart. I'm also not seeing anything else to connect the two articles --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Finding any thing to connect to the way the article is written now would be monumental. Regarding J.J. Rouse, the article only says that he was born in Ontario in 1885, nothing about where he preached. In my cite, location Edmonton, is for 1905 just about the right time that Mr. Rouse would be starting his ministry. Given the fact of their unusual reference to name J.J., I am pretty sure they are the same. ShoesssS 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be a "lift" from Brethrenpedia... but I am the one who wrote it over there. The source of the material is a book on the life of J.J. Rouse that I don't have in my posession at the moment. I had planned on completing the article while I had the book... but have not got it completed yet. It's true, the way it's written might be more suitable for Brethrenpedia, but I also hoped that others might eventually help with cleaning it up, and adding what they know about this man. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the book about Rouse was published by Pickering and Inglis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayworth (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the book mentioned in this article, J. J. Rouse’s Pioneer Work in Canada, is the one I used to start writing the entry on J.J. Rouse. It was about a year ago that I wrote it over at Brethrenpedia... haven't had time to go back to it yet.
Response - One book - that you do not have - is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's nothing personal - just the standard of notability Knowledge asks for. Springnuts (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Partial Significance of A.Marshall and J.J.Rouse There is a controversy on the origins of the Gospel Hall Brethren. Some in the movement claim that these people who resemble the Plymouth Brethren in so many ways, actually had nothing to do with them. I do not believe this is true. I think it's possible that the original Scotish Brethren might have started up separately, without any contact with any Plymouth Brethren influences. However, when one goes into who some of these early Scotish Brethren associated with, one quickly sees that there was a connection. Alexander Marshall was definitly in the circles of the Scotish Brethren of the Gospel Hall Brethren, yet in his biography, he was clearly also in the circles of other Plymouth Brethren. The article on Alexander Marshall is only a stub at this point. Again, hopefully someone will be able to complete it. He started many of the brethren assemblies in Ontario and elsewhere in North America. Rouse was connected with him. Rouse was also a Pioneer, in that he began the work that started some of the assemblies. Yes, he was from Ontario... but these men, once out as evangelists, typically travelled far and wide. The reference to Rouse forming the earliest assembly in Alberta, is about the same J.J. Rouse. Some of the events at the beginning of Rouse's time with the Brethren, is not at all similar to how the Gospel Hall Brethren operate in current times. For those who might be studying this sect, this provides an interesting perspective. I apologize that I have not completed the article, or given the source. I will eventually give the source, once I get my hands on the old book again.

Sayworth (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think he's done enough that he ought to be included. The links from Shoessss sway me. (And keep the other two articles as well). - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep of the additional articles nominated by Springnuts. They weren't included here until four days after this AfD was started so can't reasonably be considered as part of the same discussion. They should be nominated separately if thought to require deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No objection to procedural keep of the Alexander Marshall article(s)(it is one article only, albeit duplicated) - I had hoped they might be discussed together but that has not happened. Springnuts (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I have to admit, it's a poorly written article. I would prefer it to be more scholarly and relevant. For lack of time, I'm unable to complete or fix it at the moment. I personally hope someone who is more of a historian is able to complete it, and make it more relevant and notable -- hopefully someone without the bias I have referred to here and elsewhere. If, the article is NOT deleted do these comments here become part of the discussion page of the actual article? I don't know how this works, but I think it could be beneficial to keep the comments intact, and accessible from the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayworth (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion will be preserved with a link from the article talk page if it is kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 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 Speedy delete G12. Black Kite 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Does this organization meet the notability criteria? My search on google news didn't reveal many reliable sources writing about it, and those that I did find didn't seem to confirm the group's importance- in fact, they seemed to be about several different organizations that have the same name. The article itself also lacks independent sources, so I can't confirm notability that way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 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 Speedy delete (A3/A7). Black Kite 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know your secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; gsearch not turning up notability (or even existence.) Prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 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 speedy delete. MBisanz 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A duplicate of Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China (currently on AfD Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China, created by a probably sockpuppet of blocked user Kikbguy (case here). Consists of almost the exact same text and information as the other AfD'ed article, only with a single sentence and ref about military spending added; this extra information doesn't increase the notability or verifiability of the claims in this article, but only increases the amount of unpublished synthesis; like the original article, this is an arbitrary cross-categorization and collection of statistics with no assertion of a relationship between them. Article was declined for speedy until other AfD is closed, and prod was removed. —Politizer /contribs 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep and Note to Moderator Politizer and Zimzalabim have been trying to delete all of my articles because I refuse to accept their views that this article should be deleted. Zimzalabim has already abused his administrative priviliedges and had me banned under false pretenses. Politizer has a history of trying to kill wikipedia entries that he has not written. Both of them have been trying to discredit me, delete my articles, censor my comments, and block me from using wikipedia. They certainly have a conflict of interest with my articles at this point because any article I write they have and will continue to try and delete. Don't delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.9.7 (talk • contribs)
    • Update Politizer and Zimbalabim are now deleting all the "See Also" sections of my work. Don't take my word for it, check their edit logs to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.184.6.10 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment I am deleting the sections; ZimZalaBim is uninvolved. And I am not deleting sections from "your" work, I am deleting your edits to other peoples' work. You are repeatedly going to other articles and adding links this article, which is poorly written and is up for deletion. Continued addition of these links will be seen as vandalism. And again, please keep the discussion here centered on the matter at hand; if you have a problem with my actions at other articles, you can discuss it somewhere else, not here. —Politizer /contribs 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keep only one version, no duplicates and comment: Alternative data sources will be welcome. The sipri.org data has apparent math issues: the purchasing power of money in Russia is well below UK or France (i.e. all basic commodities cost more), yet for some reasons its PPP ranking is above these countries. NVO (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not a sock puppet. I'm the editor of the stub and (Politizer, Zimzalabim, and VirtualSteve) have had me blocked for "sockpuppetry" which is code for using a proxy to argue a time sensitive deletion of my article stub when they wrongfully block my original account for arguing with them. These three editors/administrators have grossly abused their power using vandalism, false accusations, deleting my posts, and downright propaganda to have me blocked, this article stub deleted, and to delete all "see also" links going to the article stub so that this information does not get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.124.103 (talk • contribs) — 128.230.124.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Too narrow and poorly defined topic for an encyclopedia. As with Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China, delete. Kikbguy, if you ever want to turn this article into anything encyclopedic, please don't repeatedly re-create it under various titles; instead, copy it into your user space and work on it there. And if you disagree with the block that has been imposed upon you, don't avoid it using sockpuppet accounts or IP addresses (this may result in your block being extended, up to an including an indefinite length); rather, challenge it on your talk page using the {{unblock|reason for unblocking}} template, or just wait until it expires. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:02, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The information in this article already exists in the Rockferry article. It is redundant and unnecessary for it to have its own article, the deluxe edition in and of itself is not notable outside of the context of the original album, and this article adds no new information which needs to be merged. Scapler (talk) 16:51, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The website doesn't seem to have much notability other than the fact that its just a forum with a fanatical userbase. The site doesn't rank that highly in Alexa compared to more professional English sites like 1UP, IGN, and GameSpot. So I don't know why this article this even exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:33, 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 Speedy close. Don't do this, please. The IWF is a clearly notable organisation, and regardless of how you feel about the current issue, this is not the way to go about protesting about it.Black Kite 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional, Waste of Space, Putting censorship controversy aside it lacks grounds for inclusion   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:13, 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 merge to The Wedding (band). MBisanz 02:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. roux  14:06, 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,  Sandstein  16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Snooze. The content is encyclopedic, and the rest of the world is probably unconcerned with whether it is placed in a stand-alone article or in the band's article. If anyone out there believes this is of critical importance, then go ahead, be bold, and do it. Otherwise, this is the wrong venue to be discussing this; this is for deletion discussion, not merger discussions. Procedural Keep. Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: little more than a track listing WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 10 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 facility management. MBisanz 02:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This appears to be part of an emerging linkfarm nest connected with the speedied Alexi Marmot Associates created by User:Oseland. I'm not insisting on outright deletion, maybe it is salvageable. Please also review the the self-referencing Post occupancy evaluation by the same user. - NVO (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please advise on how this article can be salvaged. Workplace Consulting is a recognised discipline within the UK and an omission from Knowledge. Oseland (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have teaken the refreences out to Alexi Marmot Associates on the Workplace consulting and Post occupancy evaluation articles. As above POE is a clear omission from Knowledge. Please delete the offending lines rather than the articles. I have seen articles on other archtectural practices so assumed some reference was okay. Oseland (talk) 21:24, 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,  Sandstein  16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a part of a walled garden of articles designed to promote consulting businesses; workplace strategies seems to be another. The text seems to belabor the obvious in prose that's heavy with buzzwords and glittering generalities, without adding concrete information: Workplace Consulting is the process of understanding the current and future requirements of an organisation, through consultation and analysis, in order to introduce a new workstyle or create a new workplace. In particular, workplace consultants may be engaged when an organisation is considering implementing "new ways of working", sometimes referred to as flexible or agile working. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:17, 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 keep. Suggest that Beatty Point be merged into this article or nominated separately (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a non-notable bay. Nothing of importance has happened here, and the most interesting thing according to the article is "bird watching." --Seascic /C 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:

Beatty Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep and rename to Braddock Bay. According to the Google hits I perused it actually is an important wildlife habitat even though the article doesn't mention it yet (which might explain why it's a good place for bird watching). Here's some references:

That's what I found in the first few hits. It looks there's more info to be found. - Mgm| 22:30, 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,  Sandstein  16:07, 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 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

21 Birnie Court (Red Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was nominated for prod, but tag was removed. Not sure if it falls under any speedy deletion criteria, so I'm nominating it for AfD. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Hermione1980 15:55, 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 redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Alexandra_Burke with no predudice against reversion if there's a consensus for it (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Finalists in reality shows are not generally considered notable until they have done something outside the show. However, Burke's case is not as clear-cut, as she has now taken part in two series. However, I still feel that she is not, at this time, notable enough to warrant an article. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra is hot fave to win at the bookies and is most likely to win, making her very notable and most likely have a second number-one single. The final 3 usually get recording contracts anyway which means she will become a professional singer. So whats the point of deleting my hard work to make a really good and well organized wikipage to have it come back on in a few months time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codywarren08 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If she wins, or if she gets herself a recording contract, I support an article. Until then, there should not be one. If the article is deleted, it can easily be restored if she becomes notable. Please note that Knowledge is not a crystal ball- we do not have articles on people who will become notable. If you believe that she is notable, you're going to have to demonstrate that she is notable now. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but come on, we're talking less than a week here. It's not often I'll defend an article as harmless, but there's no damage in waiting 5 more days until the finale airs. The article also has its greatest informational value at this point, as surely people will be looking her up over the next few days, as there's plenty of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There is already List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Alexandra_Burke, and this page used to redirect to it. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject not notable. Looks autobiographical. Graymornings (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep She's a leading lady in films that have been reviewed in Variety, and was the star of Beneath Her Window. . The article needs polishing, but she's notable enough of an actress to merit an article. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep My god, that article is hideous. I fixed it a little bit, added a source. I believe she's notable...the article just need a bit of work. Maybe take a sledgehammer and bash it a few times. That should work. Silverseren 21:50, 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 speedy delete. Hermione1980 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) speedy delete, see longer explanation below. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dancing To A Different Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD: "no evidence this album exists, but I may have missed something. If it does exist then keep the article, the singer is more than notable. It was supposed to be released "in early 2008" according to some sources." If reliable sources indicate this album exists, the article should be updated and this AFD speedy-closed as "keep." Note: Coincidently, the original author is blocked until January. Note: I will put a note on the talk page of the artist, Talk:Michelle McManus. See also: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Different Beat davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • In addition to the searches done above, I also checked amazon.co.uk, which has no mention of the album. Accordingly, I agree that it does not exist.
I am closing this AfD and speedy deleting the article under criterion G3: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior." Based on another admin's block of Spainton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is now abundantly clear that his edits have been of disruptive nature. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 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 speedy delete. Hermione1980 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 

speedy delete, see longer explanation below. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Different Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. PROD reason was: "no evidence this album exists, but I may have missed something. If it does exist then keep the article, the singer is more than notable. It was supposed to be released "in early 2008" according to some sources." PROD removed by the original editor, who coincidently is blocked until early January. I am requesting that this be deleted without prejudice for re-creation of a sourced article about this song. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Update: See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I will post an announcement of this on Talk:Michelle McManus in the hopes of finding sources.

  • delete without prejudice for re-creation of a properly sourced article indicating song's existence. - per me, the nominator. My hope is that this song has been released and I can request speedy-close/keep. However, an internet search didn't come up with anything. Help me out here folks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the searches done above, I also checked amazon.co.uk, which has no mention of the single. Accordingly, I agree that it does not exist.
I am closing this AfD and speedy deleting the article under criterion G3: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior." Based on another admin's block of Spainton, it is now abundantly clear that his edits have been of disruptive nature. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 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 speedy delete. Hermione1980 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Who is the subject? I don't think that he is notable enough. Alexius08 (talk) 14:08, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actress fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 14:06, 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 keep. John254 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced and without sufficient context. The text only mentions a region, but not a specific location. No time of year is given, which seems crucial for an annual event. No assertion, let alone documentation of notability (while I expect that one or several such festivals actually do exist, they could very well be minor events of only local relevance). The original purpose of the article apparently was as a link container for travel business linkspam, and nothing other than basic wikifikation has been added to it since then. --Latebird (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Not that I would mind if anyone made sure that the existing article actually supported their keep arguments... --Latebird (talk) 08:42, 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 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

It's a function hall. Much like many thousands of similar structures. The sources provided don't appear to show that this function hall has any particular notability; the cited newspaper article turns out to be merely an announcement of an event being held there. In my opinion, this is not a notable subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 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 redirect to Project Runway (season 4). MBisanz 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

In the past, the community has decided that appearing on a reality show did not, in itself, indicate that a person was notable. This person appears to be known only for her appearance on Project Runway, and the article lacks reliable independent sources showing that she is significant beyond that appearance. Do we think she is a notable person? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:14, 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. I'm deleting this because the other page Levski in Europe is complete (this one isn't). Mgm| 11:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The European Games of PFC Levski Sofia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not worthy of a separate article BanRay 13:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - the merge was carried out after the AfD was started so effectively we are endorsing a bold action. Because the content started its life here, this page cannot be deleted unless you are also going to remove the merged material from the main article and I see no desire for that. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 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 speedy delete, blanked by creator. ... discospinster talk 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Could not find any significant news articles or press on Herwig. Graymornings (talk) 12:12, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Times Will Suit Them (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this book is notbale. It got two newspaper mentions (in the same paper, on the same day, about 2 weeks ago on 23-Nov-2008) , and a briefer mention in The Australian back on 1-Nov-2008 but my opinion is that being merely being reviewed in one or two newspaper reviews does not make a book notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What in your opinion does establish book noteability? Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
1) The book reveals some significant information previously unknown 2) the authorised or auto- biography of a notable person 3) a bestseller 4) study of the book is part of a curriculum (ordinary textbooks excepted) 5) the book is banned/censored 6) holy book of a notable religion. Feel free to convince me, though... why is this book in particular better than other similar books on the Howard era? --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Books which are basically extended and somewhat researched (the level of research varies) opinion pieces or commentaries are published all the time, and by/through reputable publishers. Some of them make for good reading. But to deserve an article on Knowledge there must be something more. Broken Lives by Estelle Blackburn for instance resulted in public attention to two old criminal cases which were subsequently overturned. The Latham Diaries and Costello's memoirs had media impact. The Education of a Young Liberal by John Hyde Page was influential, as was Keith Windschuttle's book questioning Aboriginal history (which really, btw, needs to be separated out from History wars) and Geoffrey Blainey's All for Australia. However I can think of several works reviewing politics of recent years which simply, yeah, I mean, they were decent reads whether one agreed with them or not, but they were just non-happeners, nobody outside either the latte set or the conservative fringe gave a stuff. Many of them really just existed to give obscure academics or journalists some level of respectability by having a published work. Some even got a one page book review in an academic journal, or written about in one of the arts sections of the dailies. But I'd argue against their notability on the basis that Knowledge would almost be embarking on a promotional endeavour to cover them, as nobody outside a limited audience would know or have cause to know about them. Orderinchaos 08:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the book narrowly meets one of the notability criteria for books, having been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial independent coverage (the Herald Sun review, and the discussion on Radio National). Two mentions, both fairly brief but both critical commentary rather than plot summaries, both in reliable secondary sources. The (needlessly opaque) Radio National story is perhaps the more important as it debates the themes the book presents rather than simply reviewing it, but neither piece is the kind of in-depth examination that would absolutely guarantee notability. Still, on balance there could be just enough here to retain the article. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - You're right to raise critical commentary - WP:NB says of works which cite a book, "Some... should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." But I don't see anything remotely like that in this case. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'd interpret this as being coverage which discusses the themes or the writing, rather than simply restating the plot. So if the principal purpose of the coverage is to review the book or its ideas rather than repeat its contents page, it may rate as critical commentary. The Herald Sun article, for example, outlines the "plot" but goes on to discuss the opacity of the language and the relative depth of the book's examination of Howard-era political landscape. The Sociology article also gives a "plot summary" but goes on to discuss the validity of the plot arguments in Australian society. I'd qualify this by noting that the critical commentary in each case is brief, and these are the only two such sources I could find (the other links mentioned above are mirrors of the Herald Sun) or publisher's blurbs. So - we need multiple sources citing critical commentary, and we have two sources with limited critical commentary. I'd therefore say it meets WP:NB, but only by the narrowest of margins. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputing references as to notability

I am disputing the references given as evidence of the book's notability:

(I'm not 100% convinced that these references even count as reliable sources)

I have yet to see any reference that makes this book stand out from the crowd. The coverage is the same as you would expect for any book that was recently published ie. a few book reviews and a few interviews with the author(s).

Things I'd like to see:

  • one of the subjects in the book interviewed about the book content (e.g. "Mr Howard, what is your response to allegations in the book The times will suit them that...")
  • A notable person quoting the book as an influence
  • Evidence of a journalist doing some research based on the book's content ie. it provoked a news story

--Surturz (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little mystifed - only one of those four references is used in the article. I agree the others are unsuitable or compeltely unrelated, but I'm not sure why they've been mentioned. The one that is used(the Herald Sun article) is coverage in a reliable secondary source, though its comprehensiveness is discussed above.
Re the things you'd like to see - I agree it would be great if Howard had been interviewed about the book and commented on it, but a personal opinion by a book's subject is not essential to establish that book's notability. A notable person quoting the book as an influence - an independent academic is quoted here - how notable he is is debatable, but this at least partly satisfies the request. Evidence of a news story about the book - the "Counterpoint" article linked above is a story on a news program - Counterpoint is a national current affairs program hosted by SMH columnist Michael Duffy and former journalist Paul Comrie-Thompson. In general, while the things you'd like to see would certainly help establish notability, they aren't requirements of the notability guideline.
Lest it appear I'm a cheerleader for the book, I'd add I'm only weakly in favour of keeping the article. The sources are a bit thin, the book has won no awards and it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking in any meaningful way. Its therefore a judgement call whether it meets the guidelines - I'd say weak keep, others may legitimately say delete. The only point I'd make is we need to assess the article on its actual content and using the criteria in the current guidelines. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot to check the article itself! I was using the references in the above discussion. the counterpoint radio show would appear to meet the first criteria for WP:NB, just, so I'll change my vote to weak keep. "The reactions are to die for, Paul." lol --Surturz (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It is very difficult to tell the notability of a new non-fiction relatively academic book, unless it becomes an immediate best seller or is published by a very notable author. it takes a few months for reviews to appear in most media, it takes at least a year or so before it is found in most of the libraries that will eventually own it. It takes a few years before it can really be expected to have an influence. The authors are medium-important political philosophers, possibly worthy of Knowledge articles, but certainly not famous For a book of clearly immediate political interest, I would expect much fuller coverage in australian newspaper sources. . Until then there is no basis for an article, and an attempt to have one for such a title strikes me as promotional, an attempt to use Knowledge to establish its importance. But I do not understand the argument that a book review is not evidence for notability--two more like that & I'd say keep. DGG (talk) 04:55, 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 keep. John254 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject not notable. Article sounds somewhat like an advertisement. Graymornings (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Maria Treben is one of the most famous natural medicine healers of the Twnetieth century. She has helped thousands of people with her personal advice and with the books she has written. She is known throughout the world and is a regular reference for anybody seeking an alternative health solution to their condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The only sources for this article seem to be self-published, which violates WP:SPS. If there are reliable sources for this article, please include them. These might include newspaper articles, books, or web sites that reference your subject. You can refer to WP:SOURCES if you're not familiar with Knowledge policy. Graymornings (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • She has sold over 8 million copies of her book in 24 languages. (Do you know that a best seller usually only sells a few thousand copies!!) Here's the ISBN for her book: ISBN 13: 978-3-85068-124-7 Please take into account that if 8 million people have spent money on buying her book then millions more people would expect to have a referece for her in Knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Gimme some time till Wednesday. There are plenty of third party sources - not only from the pseudo-healers realm (all positive) but from mainstream academia too (all dismissive, to put it mildly). The lady definitely had an impact in her trade. NVO (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Change to keep. The new articles about the subject show her notability, but it needs more improvement. Dekisugi (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Now where's that Wiki "rule" about articles about people that aren't properly capitalized?--Boffob (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keepFair enough it is my first contribution to Knowledge. I specialize in the history of Medicine and especially in the transition period XVIth to XIXth century between traditional and allopathic medicine. I saw that Knowledge was lacking a lot of information on famous herbalists so wanted to contribute something. This is just a start. I will enhance and update it. How do you change the title?? I have been trawling all editing notes but cannot find how to change Treben to capital T. Thanks. philippe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippeGenlain (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOVE explained on usertalk. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:44, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A unreferenced list of playable and non playable characters of Super Robot Wars. Banpresto Originals was deleted and it was written that "This doesn't seem to be an official term used to differentiate this series from the rest of the Super Robot Wars series". Check Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Banpresto Originals. Moreover, all article characters were deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating this:

Banpresto Original Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Don't be tricked by the links. In fact the link to one article only. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, only source is subject's MySpace page. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This person may not be as 'famed' as the article claims, to the point where the article may be considered a hoax. The article appears to be written by its subject, creating a conflict of interest. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:32, 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 Speedy Deleted clear advertising multiple copies both salted Gnangarra 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Promote africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promoteafrica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Even though this organization exists for a purportedly noble cause, this article reads as an advertisement. In particular, it does not draw from secondary sources. The two nominated articles are identical except for the presence or absence of a space in the title. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. (So tagged.) Text like "Imagine how much value will come out of your contribution..." has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, and this article would have to be more or less completely rewritten to have any chance at a neutral POV. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:27, 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 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Marine-Estuarine-Environmental Sciences (MEES) Graduate Program, University System of Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An article on a non notable post graduate program. The article offers no independent sources and there appear to be them. Knowledge is not a webhost, prospectus nor advertising site. Nuttah (talk) 09:19, 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 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tim Armstrong band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An article on a non notable covers band which makes no claim to meeting WP:BAND. A search returns no reliable sources Nuttah (talk) 09:12, 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. Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Mgm| 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article may exist primarily to promote a particular company. The company may also not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 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 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Harrison C. Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor. The majority of the "independent" and "short" films cannot be verified, the role of "Nerdy Boy" in the unreleased Frankie Muniz film, My Sexiest, is far down the credit list, and the only other film role that can be verified is also far down the credit list. When you eliminate the extraneous uses of his name, his self-promotional YouTube videos and the Knowledge article, it leaves 24 Google hits, some of which aren't this person. Oh, and did I mention that he created his own article? His notability has not been established. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 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 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Shanti/Ashtangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Album track only, never released as a single. Article has been flagged for lack of references for over a year with no improvement, suggesting none are to be found Paul75 (talk) 06:37, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article may constitute a failed attempt to promote a particular product/website (there is no {{reflist}} to generate the intended hyperlink). The article is written in corporate newspeak, making it inaccessible to a lay audience and not able to be generalised for the purposes of a general-interest encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Keep - I agree with your description of this article, but it does seem to be a legitimate field that can also be studied at university . Somno (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Personally I have taken two university courses in innovation management, so there is little doubt as to that the topic exists and is notable. I agree that the article is not particularly well written, and I have attempted a copyedit to try to make it a bit more comprehensive, but due to lack of time I can't go around searching for references. I don't have much faith in the current reference, since it is merely advertisement for a company (though it doesn't seem to be directly incorrect). Arsenikk 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum I have expanded the article, and added references to three published books, all among the vast collection of material available on innovation management. I hope this sets aside any doubt as to the titanic selection of material available on the subject at hand, and thus underlines the topics application to both WP:N and WP:R. I believe all the nominators rationales have been seen to, and I hope there is understanding that poor quality of prose cannot be used as a valid argument for deletion. Arsenikk 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I am leaning towards !voting keep, but now the article has been rewritten, I don't understand much of it (e.g. "Innovation management seeks to foster a repetitive process of response to opportunity"). I would attempt to fix this myself, but I think I'd just confuse the topic even more. Is it possible for you to rewrite the article to be more accessible to a general audience? Apologies if I'm asking too much. Somno (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, vehemently. Innovation management focuses on the process of innovation, and is normally adapted by manager, and can be applied to both product and organizational innovation. In other words, if you can't find what you're looking for, you aren't looking in the right place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete An essentially empty article. DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is rewritten and I removed the first questionable source. There is no doubt "Innovation management" is a notable subject, and it seems to me this is the one thing that really counts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a notable topic. Arsenikk has improved it and now it is a well-referenced article which meets the notability criteria. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A subject with three textbooks referenced currently. II | (t - c) 09:33, 11 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 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Promise to Try (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Never released as a single, album track only. Unreferenced. Paul75 (talk) 06:25, 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 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Autobiography of non-notable actor. No IMDB entry. No valid references. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 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 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Till Death Do Us Part (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Album track only, never released as a single. Unreferenced and OR. Paul75 (talk) 06:21, 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 redirect to True Blue (album). MBisanz 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Party (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. US Promo release only. Never charted. Unreferenced Paul75 (talk) 06:17, 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 redirect to True Blue (album). MBisanz 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Love Makes the World Go 'Round (1986 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Song is an album track only, has never been released as a single and has only ever been performed once. What scant (unreferenced) information there is can easily be included in the parent album's article Paul75 (talk) 06:12, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7. Enigma 07:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability. Author keeps deleting speedy tags, and deleted prod tag.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:01, 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 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge:Notability (films), as shooting has not yet begun. Sources in article are mostly about the stars, with the film being a passing mention. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when is casting being considered a sufficient criterion for WP:NFF? GNG in minimum requirement any type of article, but to establish notability of a film it must pass criteria listed in NFF. Sleaves talk 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Considering the fertility of Indian Cinema, this film may be finished by Christmas and released by New Year's. Let it return then. Schmidt, 08:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article is very recent. Give it some time to improve. Laurent paris (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge relevant content to director's page, per WP:NFF. His last film was also weeks away from shooting and was described in AfD as "a sure thing", only to completely and utterly fail to enter production. Anything that is notable as of today is only notable in the context of the director's career; until filming begins, notability specific enough for an independent article cannot be said to have been reached. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 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 keep. (Non-admin closure) ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This was a boxing match this past night that has no real lasting value. While it involved notable fighters, it in and of itself was rather unremarkable: it was not even for a title.

Keeping a boxing match like this would be like keeping an article for the 2007 Indianapolis-New England regular season NFL game - yeah the teams were good but the game had no lasting value. --CastAStone/ 05:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN due to clear consensus. I think its a good idea for someone to use this AfD as a start to a general notability consensus for Boxing Matches.--CastAStone/ 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote for it to NOT BE DELETED, since the fight has its own name 'The Dream Match' and gathered the second biggest revenue in history, it has the right to remain in the Knowledge. It's like a boring Super Bowl, it has the right to be remembered for what it was, not for how interesting it was.--Gussisaurio (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It was given a name by its promoters just like every other fight of the last 5 years. The revenue stuff is speculation. It was nothing like a super bowl; it wasn't for a championship.--CastAStone/ 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another boxing match, and no real indication that this one was any more special than most. Resolute 06:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth, we should use the title and expand the article's scope, i.e. instead of just covering one fight, this should be covering the entire card à la The Rumble in the Jungle. The event in its entirety has gathered enough media coverage to both suply references and assert notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't get it. However, perhaps if the article were better constructed and organised I might. I wouldn't consider every single individual sports event as notable. In fact if that were the case it would take away from the real notable events, thus lowering their value. --➨Candlewicke 10:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Keep For crying out loud, you can keep all the Superbowl articles, this one is actually an important event in boxing history, and also for the Philippines. The article needs to exist so the reference can be kept for 90+ million Filipinos and millions of Mexicans as well. Revenue stuff is not just speculation, please check the news reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.205.149 (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, this match is already history. it will probably mark the end of de la hoya's career. it also shows the continued rise of the mexicutioner manny pacquiao. he was the underdog in this match. boxing experts said he had no chance against de la hoya, but he completely annihilated him and proved them wrong. the dream match is also significant for filipinos. pacquiao represents all of the filipinos. keep this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.57.10 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, its oscar de la hoyas last fight and they are 2 boxers who will go down as legends. big fights all have their own page and this one has a guy fighting 2 divisions higher than he has done before and beating the biggest name in boxing right now. its a modern day david v golliath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana-rock89 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep' - While it could use some cleanup, it must be kept. 2nd biggest revenue in boxing history? The most anticipated fight of the year? The possible end of De La Hoya's career? The millions of Fillippinos and Mexicans who stood my their fellow countrymen? I think I've made my point. It may have ben a mismatch, but but it was "David vs Goliath" here, Pacquiao defied the odds, and proved all the skeptics wrong. He overcame, if you will. It's an event that will live on in boxing history forever. There you have it. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.149.252 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly a notable fight between two highly notable boxers. But as suggested by others, it should be moved to "Pacquiao versus de la Hoya 2008" or similar, and cleaned-up. "The Dream Match" is a highly uninformative title, and will only be applicable until the next "dream match". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - One of the most notable fights this years, probably Oscar De La Hoya's last fight. Pacquiao is no small time boxer. Also, this was one of the biggest Boxing gates ever. So keep, although it definitely needs to be improved, the title needs to be changed etc. as mentioned above. Correctus (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment on notability. Currently all major WWE PPVs have their own articles. Even a football referee has his own. Heck even 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game -- a non-championship match, like this one, has one. We'd have to put this into perspective, especially this was especially notable to three countries, unlike in the case of the footy ref or the NCAA football game which are notable (barely on the referee's case) in their respective countries. So if that Irish ref has an article, I can't even comprehend why this is on AFD, and move this discussion to be closed ASAP, especially with overwhelming keeps. –Howard the Duck 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep especially now that it has been moved to a more encyclopedic name and it seems to have been much improved since it was first proposed for deletion. It seems a notable event at the conjunction of two notable careers with the added notability that it was a matter of Philippine national pride (not something you'd get from a staged WWE match, which, as noted above, seem nonetheless to pass other people's idea of notability) KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports said in the fight that Manny Pacquiao battered Oscar De La Hoya "into retirement." The Associated Press also had a headline regarding the fight, "De La Hoya beaten into retirement?" (via the Winnipeg Sun and called De La Hoya the "biggest box office attraction in the sport." Chris Mannix of Sports Illustrated wrote "The end has come for De La Hoya" and "So this is it. This is how it ends for Oscar De La Hoya." and "He has to retire." And the fight had the second largest gate revenue in boxing history, as has been noted by others. --Pixelface (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is an important match. See Pixelface's comments above. Could use some cleanup. Calebrw (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn due to clear consensus. I think its a good idea for someone to use this AfD as a start to a general notability consensus for Boxing Matches.--CastAStone/ 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This match WILL have a lasting impact. Hachiko (talk) 10:18, 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 Kept. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N. I would like further opinions regarding this. Also, as per the text present in the Career section, it is clear the creator of this article is also the subject of this article, and therefore is prone to WP:COI(note the use of first-person word I in the last sentence in the Career section). — Dædαlus /Improve 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit off-topic - in Malayalam she appeared under the name Shobhana (was therefore often called Chembarathy Shobhana). Imdb wrongly attributes this role to another, better known, Shobhana. Tintin 17:54, 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, MBisanz 05:07, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Nn-notable company Narutolovehinata5 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a speedy deletion category for this, A7. I have added that tag to the article. Somno (talk) 05:21, 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 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Site does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Article is written entirely from the primary source. Few wiki links (tagged since last year). Pcap ping 10:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. While the article certainly needs work, the site does appear to pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB, as its content has been distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, in this case, Google Earth and Google Maps.--Unscented (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • My understanding from the blog entry , which is not affiliated with Google, is that EEmap is a site that allows users to store Chinese annotations over Google's map. But this content is stored on EEmap's site, and not distributed by Google. So I don't see how point 3 of WP:WEB applies. EEmap is just a derivative of Google maps, but it does not seem endorsed or its content distributed by Google in any way. Pcap ping 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, they do have an overlay hosted on Google Maps's site, but it's non-functional (for me anyway) . Google Maps has this disclaimer: "The content overlaid onto this map is provided by a third party, and Google is not responsible for it". YMMV if that qualifies it for 3. Pcap ping 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • What does YMMV mean?
        • YMMV. Point 3 of WP:WEB has an exception for trivial distribution. An non-working Google Maps overlay that is not endorsed by Google probably qualifies as trivial. Pcap ping 08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the full text of the "trivial distribution" exception says: Trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.). While Google Maps does have a general disclaimer attached to the overlay, they're still distributing it, and they aren't a site like YouTube or MySpace where anyone can upload whatever content they like. It's certainly a borderline situation, but personally, I think it passes.--Unscented (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:04, 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, MBisanz 04:57, 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 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article has gone a year without any credible sources and isn't very encyclopediac anyway. Looks like Japanese pop-culture-cruft. RobertM525 (talk) 03:49, 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, MBisanz 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete English Knowledge, people. Notability outside of Japanese culture is not established, period. JuJube (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: notability is not established. JamesBurns (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Notability doesn't have to be established outside of a particular area. If something is notable, even locally notable, then it is notable. That said, this is likely more appropriate for Wiktionary unless more sources can be found. ···日本穣 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wiktionary and delete from Knowledge. No need for an encyclopedia article. As Oda Mari noted, it's just the Japanese term for "hearing things" as in "I must be hearing things." A comedian uses it as the title of a segment of a television show. Some English speakers use the term as a borrowing from the television show. That doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. The examples belong in a blog. Fg2 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep precisely because this is the English wikipedia, and coverage of other cultures is not just suitable but necessary. This is apparently a genre of joke, and considered a notable genre there, and therefore worth an article. As for examples, I think the number is modest, just bout right to make the point--about half were clear enough for even a non Japanese-speaker american like me to smile. This is the sort of subject which cannot be clearly described without some examples. DGG (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - sources may be difficult to deal with as they are likely to be in Japanese. But being popular enough to generate a recurring segment in a comedy show is evidence that the subject is likely notable and kept per WP:BIAS. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very popular mode of humor in Japanese culture. Someone who can access Japanese academic articles should check to see if there are actually articles on this comedy style. Has potential for expansion with regard to the origin of the practice and comparing it to other forms of humor and to similar practices in other cultures. --Polaron | Talk 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but rename Soramimi hour and copyedit like Headlines (The Tonight Show). Or merge into Tamori Club. Oda Mari (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I prefer deletion, if it is kept, it should be renamed as Oda Mari proposed. Better than keeping as a standalone article, even with the suggested new title, is to merge it as Oda Mari also proposed. Fg2 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive. --Criffer —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:39, 11 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 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NM, non-notable person with lack of third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 20:13, 22 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) 00:03, 27 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 03:32, 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, MBisanz 04:54, 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.

Can't believe i am editing this for the first time since 2008! Am I the only one who heard his song in 9 years?! by mistake of course

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

D2 (clothing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe the company fails notability - it is a retail company with a website, and I cannot find anything that could be added to the article without it turning into an advert. Putney Bridge (talk) 00:21, 27 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) 01:51, 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, MBisanz 04:54, 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 speedy delete, A7; notability not even asserted. While the article was admittedly a masterpiece, when the issue is one of notability it doesn't matter. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Promotional. No claims of notability. Narutolovehinata5 04:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? What makes other web applications "notable"? Do I need to include mashable, ZDNet or PRWeek articles to justify our legitimacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchengine (talk • contribs) 05:05, 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 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nixon Pryor Roundtree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't meet notability requirements for albums. I can't find any sources as to charting, or any coverage at all about the album, in order to give it more than a track list. Given that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", I tried a redirect to the artist's article, Richie Rich (rapper), but that was reverted. So I'm bringing it here for further discussion as to whether it is notable enough for an article. Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating two additional albums by the same artist, for the same reasons of lacking notability and no sources found to provide notability:

Richie Rich Presents - Grabs, Snatches & Takes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits (Richie Rich album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All Right Simply Put It Those Albums Did'nt Chart Man Those Albums Werent Popular Richie Rich Isnt That Popular Anymore

Ok

Well Heres Some Links Man from very reliable sources

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Richie+Rich+(2)


http://www.discogs.com/release/1007292

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/artist.jhtml

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/richie_rich/albums.jhtml?albumId=736461

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/736461/album.jhtml

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/albums.jhtml

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/richie_rich/239017/album.jhtml

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:acfwxqykldae

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dvftxqukldae

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0jfyxq80ldje

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hcfoxqraldje —Preceding unsigned comment added by The4's (talk • contribs) 08:26, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

according to multiple WP:RS, "Maal literally mean Property". Not a mythical creature, as this Article purports. Unless there is a translation error, I believe this Article should be Deleted Exit2DOS2000 04:31, 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 Withdrawn - meets WP:PROF ~ my error. ZimZalaBim 14:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. ZimZalaBim 04:07, 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 redirect to Filipino martial arts. MBisanz 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This stub fails WP:NOTE and could possibly be a hoax as well. -MBK004 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DELETE and possibly CSD G3 (Vandalism) or CSD G1 (nonsense). It is such a mess, and I doubt that we can ever improve it. Narutolovehinata5 04:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redirect target While it is quite flattering to include them in the ninja article, I think that it would be as inaccurate as merging Samurai and Knight (both are orthodox warriors of different cultures while Ninja and Kublan are unorthodox fighters). Judging from the scant data, we only know that the Kublan employ camoflague and ambush tactics and the similarity with Ninjas ends there. Should this be merged/redirected, I suggest that the target be Filipino martial arts instead.--Lenticel 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Filipino martial arts works. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:06, 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 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Likely non-notable company founder. Company does exist, however. Opening for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:04, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe that this article is unsuitable for inclusion. It is unclear to me for what purpose this article exists. This article may exist to promote the website www.galleryofpearls.com. It may otherwise be an essay, or someone's opinion, that has not achieved widespread acceptance. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:55, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with only a nomination with an ensemble of 10 actors. Twice deleted for not showing notability, including as Lexi Marie. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t02:48z 02:48, 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 Redirect to Professional wrestling holds#Elevated double chickenwing. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Double chicken wing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable wrestling move. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 02:37, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Brown (Australian footballer) (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 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: contrary to claims being made in AFDs and PRODs, WP:ATHLETE is not gospel, just an additional criteria, that does not override the Basic notability criteria of A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is a concerted effort by a few editors to wipe out all of the 2008 AFL Draft player articles, regardless of their possibilities, without allowing any time to provide references. This was AFD'd only 33 minutes after I tagged it as {{unreferenced}}. This is about the 6th AFD that's come up tonight, plus a bunch more PRODs. I wish I could have spent tonight improving articles, but I'm too busy voting here. For those not aware of the AFL, it has a very "closed-door" team squad makeup - the draft is the only way for new, young players to be added to their 38 man senior squads, and each team only selected between 3 and 8 players in the draft. It's not like they have squads of 100, or they'll be getting another 10 new guys next month - this is it until next year. This guy was pick 15 - ie first round. I've added a couple of refs to this article. Also, be wary of ghits counts on this one - there is another Mitchell Brown who was drafted last year in the AFL, and both seem to also use Mitch Brown a lot too. The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and I disagree with User:The-Pope - in my view WP:ATHLETE trumps basic notability criteria if that criteria are being applied to that person's sporting career - refs in the paper to sporting achievements need to be subject to the lens of WP:Athlete. --Matilda 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level. Harro5 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Matilda. McWomble (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:35, 6 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 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - we've had all these arguments before, both ways. My only concern is that the title ought to be Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - To clarify, the assertion put forward by Matilda (who appears to have retired from Knowledge in the past few days) that WP:ATHLETE trumps basic notability criteria has been disagreed by others in other AFDs (see here for example) in the past week. From the many similar AFDs to this one that have been closed in the past few days, it's generally come down to the quality and quantity of reliable sources provided that has tipped the scale to keep or delete. Of the three articles referenced, one could be argued is not independant (published by the AFL website, who are sort of, indirectly, his employers or at least the license issuer/controlling organisation of his employers, but it is signifant coverage of him being a surprise early pick. The second reference is clearly significant coverage, independant and a secondary source. The third is borderline on significant coverage, but again is independant and a secondary source. So, it's up to others to decide if this is enough for a stub article? And off topic from the notability discussion, see Talk:Mitchell_Brown_(Australian_footballer) for my views on Richard's page name suggestion. The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree on renaming the article Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). They are footballers, not football players. WP:AFL tends to use (Australian footballer) unless it clashes with an Australian 'soccer' or rugby union/league player in which case more disambiguation is required and (Australian rules footballer) is used. Jevansen (talk) 23:54, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

American actor with no notable roles. The clearly auto-generated three-sentence stub claims he appeared in 24 films, but counts appearances on television shows. No sources other than IMDB, nor even the slightest claim of notability: essentially, a re-purposed IMDB entry of no encyclopaedic value. CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:13, 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, –Juliancolton 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
None of those even rise to level of "lesser coverage" they are just playbills that list this fellow as being in the cast. L0b0t (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange, the guide-lines I'm reading say ...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Lessor mentions, I can imagine, would be perfectly adequate for sourcing facts for people whose notability has already been established, but I fail to see how they in any way, shape or form illustrate or are evidence of any sort of wider acclaim in the first place. Nor can I understand how the addition of yet another user-edited page and an obviously auto-generated CV page can count as 'reliable sources': rather, it seems a desperate attempt to 'rescue' a minor-actor's-CV-passing-as-a-biography that should never been auto-generated to begin with.
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some amateurish re-creation of IMDB: there should be some reason for this article other than a very short CV. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – As an encyclopedia there are many areas for inclusion. One of the ones at Knowledge is Entertainer where it states: “… Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions”. Though Shahar has not starred in his numerous roles, he has played significant parts in the films – TV and theater productions he has appeared in. Thus is eligible for inclusion under Entertainer. Thanks ShoesssS 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment – No blame assigned :-). This is what AFD is for. ShoesssS 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that I saw a suggestion that a nominator be reprimanded for "abuse" of the AFD process here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:11, 10 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 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Hunt (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)

  • Delete His track record to date is playing in the TAC Cup, which is not notable, and being listed in the draft as a potential AFL player. He may go onto play in the AFL, but that success - and notability - at this stage simply isn't guaranteed. A significant number of these draft picks don't progress to become AFL footballers and at this stage there's no reason to treat this subject any differently. Murtoa (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 6 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 02:30, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven Motlop (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:29, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete If and when he makes his AFL appearances, he will be deserving of an article, but at present he's just one of a large grab bag of potential stars, and the footy field in Australia is littered with large numbers of cast-offs who didn't make the grade from previous grab bags. And practically none of the discards will ever being deserving of notability status in these pages. Not wishing bad luck on the lad, but he's not notable yet. Murtoa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. Keep On precedent. Similar arguments occurred last year and the year before after the draft, and each time the result was keep.Aspirex (talk) 11:10, 4 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 02:29, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhys O'Keeffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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 22:19, 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, –Juliancolton 02:26, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete. If being selective of the draft makes him notable, then add the sources to prove it - then he would even pass WP:GNG.Yobmod (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:28, 6 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 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I have learned through experience that mass noms are highly likely to be thrown out on procedural grounds. Individual nominations are the only sensible alternative, annoying as they are. Reyk YO! 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment The other alternative would have been to either group them (early picks/late picks or with refs/without refs), or nominate 3 or 4 only, see what the outcomes are, then nominate or keep the others based on the outcomes of those intial few. But we're almost through this batch of 16... I'm sure if they want to look hard enough they can find some more.The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice to read someone else who understands AfD's work best as singular nominations (especially where there are several initial creators) --VS 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • question addressed to those who know the sport--on the average, as a general rule, of the people in this position, how many of them will actually play a league game? If almost all of them do, then there is an argument for making the articles. Otherwise, I'm somewhat dubious, and we'd need to look at special cases if thre's anything particular to be said. DGG (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Answer From 2007, 7 of the picks 30-39 have played. From 2006 it's all 10. From 2005 it's 9 of the picks in the 30s. In 2004 it was all 10. Some of these have only played 1 or 2 games, some have since been delisted, and some were father-son rule selections (not really 30ish picks, but pre-draft picks that "cost" a pick in the 30s). The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 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 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I created this article about a local news woman in Florida working for Central Florida News 13 as I felt it would be a good idea. However, I'm now beggining to think that this article does not need to be on Knowledge due to the fact that Crabtree is only local and not national. What do you think?

Before I end what I have to say, I feel the below article on a local weather anchor in Chicago which I also created an article about faces the same issues that Melissa Crabtree faces:

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - It's okay to have articles about very local personalities but it's essential to provide three independent indications of notability. In this case it will generally mean three non-Central Florida News 13 mentions, but a news story from that source saying (for example) that some mayor or organization gave her an award would probably be acceptable too. As this article is now it should almost certainly be deleted, but if improved along the lines I suggest it should probably stay. I suggest you do a web search of her name and see what comes up. Boston (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do you get the figure three from, Boston? WP:N says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" but I don't recall coming across three as a benchmark before. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think I imagined it. Maybe it's a relic of memory from previous policy? At any rate, thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy. Boston (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
        • You're welcome. Though there are enough policies, guidelines, essays, statements of precedent etc. that it could well say that somewhere too. Anyway, Boston's central point is sound: the article has a place if we can find some significant mentions in independent sources; otherwise, it's currently delete-worthy. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete local news staff are not notable usually. It takes an award, or something similar. As I understand the numerical benchmark, it's ordinarily two, not three--multiple being interpreted very loosely. Personally, I think it depends not on the number, but rather what is said in the article, beyond the toutine coverage can be assumed to be PR. Anyway, its irrreevant here, because the number for this article is zero. DGG (talk) 05:23, 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 no consensus. There have been numerous sources that prove the groups exist and have data published about them, but the trivial intersection issue was not addressed. Mgm| 11:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
British Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Macedonians in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep one, Delete the other; or maybe the other way around. If the only standard was whether the articles prove that the topic is "notable", then I suppose we could apply some arbitrary definition of how many people gotta be in a group to be notable. I've decided that it has to be "at least 7,000" and I'm afraid that the Croatians have only 6,992 according to their article, so they just miss out. However, most topics are potentially notable, and the question then comes down to whether an article meets Knowledge standards for content, sourcing, etc.; at the moment, the "British Serbs" article shows that there is a substantial community that has a presence in the United Kingdom, while the Croatian British article is the census-data-in-a-can piece that has nothing to say. The British Serbs article should be kept. If the other article can be beefed up, then I might be inclined to say keep for that as well. At the moment, however, no. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say "Weak delete" on that one. Although it might be brought up to code, its source seems to be limited to www.macedonians.co.uk, which is more of what we call in the U.S. a "community calendar" -- picnics, parties, meet Ms. Soandso. Although it has a "news section", the news isn't about Macedonians in Britain; it appears to be what's going on "back home". Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Macedonians in Britain and Croatian British, Keep British Serbs. The usual barrage of searches "Fooian (s/community/people/etc.) in (the United Kingdom/etc.)" brings up a number of reliable sources for Serbs , but none for the other two, just a few forum posts, blogs, and the like, so I don't see any possibility that they could be beefed up. cab (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the articles can always be improved and added to in the future. If you insist on deleting pages because they are "uninformative" then there are many other groups in Britian such as Bulgarians, Vincentians etc. PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that the articles are "uninformative". I said that I don't think they are notable. And the fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that these should. Articles should be considered on their individual merits. Besides, quite a few similar articles have been deleted recently, such as Indonesian British and several others here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • How notable is notable? 1000 people, 2000 people, 3000 people? If there is enough information on the topic the notability is easily questioned. PMK1 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I should have said that I don't think that the articles assert notability. I don't think there's a magic size at which groups become notable, but there needs to be some proof that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order for it to be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Croats diaspora is about 4.000.000 people all over the world. You can find Croats in England in 15th century and several articles like . The articles can always be improved and added to in the future, I agree with PKM1. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can say that of any article on Knowledge -- that it can be improved. But since intersection articles aren't "inherently notable" nor "absolutely prohibited", each one is judged on its own merits. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Why should Croatians.com be considered a reliable source, exactly? It appears to fall squarely in the category of WP:SELFPUB: written by a guy who published everything he's ever written through Ragusan Publishers, a company he owns himself, and who devotes an alarming portion of his written output to claiming that Croatians performed amazing feats which mainstream historians have traditionally attributed to people from other ethnic groups. As for the essay by Darko Zubrinic on CroationHistory.com: it seems he's a professor of mathematics writing non-peer reviewed essays about the history of his own ethnic group in his spare time. Again, not WP:RS. cab (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep - Improve, don't delete articles on these ethnic groups. The articles are not equivalent in completeness and should not have been lumped together in the same proposal just because they're all Slavic ethnic groups; the second contains notable individuals and the third contains a great deal of contextual information. Constant proposal of deletion rather than improvement is becoming disruptive to our project. Articles cover notable subjects and some include a great deal of historical information, notable individuals, and other important information. Further, the three articles are in different states of completeness, and it is illogical to propose them together as a group, lumping them all in a single proposal apparently because they are all Slavic ethnic groups. Improve, don't delete, and direct your energies toward improving, not eliminating, our content. The fixation on attempting to eliminate entire articles on particular ethnic groups is draining on our resources as a project. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I can see now that the British Serbs article can probably be improved. In fact, I've added some references to that article that were suggested here. However, I don't think the same can be said of the Croatian and Macedonian articles, which no one has suggested any sources for which establish notability and meet WP:RS. Improvement is only possible if you can assert notability. The "great deal of contextual information" was added in the course of this discussion and was completely unreferenced, and, as such, I've removed it until references can be supplied. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. At list two I found in WP Maksim Mrvica and Davor Šuker (all search results hits from Google are connected to the soccer match England vs. Croatia). --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying that there are references in those articles that can be used to assert the notability of the articles under consideration here? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 4 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 02:24, 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 merge to List of Firefox extensions. MBisanz 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article about a Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. A {{prod}} was removed by creator without comment. ZimZalaBim 02:08, 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 keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm| 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Finished unfinished nom for OneCyclone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:04, 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 Speedy deleted as copyvio from http://www.tajhotels.com/abouttaj/companyinformation/HistoryOfTaj.htm .

The history of the Taj Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm suggesting this page be merged with Taj Hotel, but would like community consensus before doing so. I don't know if I'm supposed to post a merge suggestion here or elsewhere. My apologies in advance for that.~Beano~ 01:38, 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 speedy keep per withdrawal of nomination with no "delete" opinions registered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

KY 915 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I am sure that Kentucky Route 915 is a fine place to travel, live, and such, but it is just one more road in the US. I don't think Knowledge needs an article for each interesting road in the world. I don't feel strongly about this, so this is a "weak delete". sinneed (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the link to common outcomes, Gene93K. State highways are, indeed, specifically OK in the US, and Provincial highways in Canada. I would like the withdraw the article from consideration for deletion.sinneed (talk) 01:52, 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 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bakugan Battle Brawlers: The New Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article may be too speculative for inclusion in wikipedia. I cannot find any evidence of a new generation on the Bakugan website. A Google search reveals one link - - which is a post from a forum. The New Generation may represent wishful thinking, or fan fiction. In any case, it is unverifiable.

The article's author has also added some info to the Bakugan Battle Brawlers article. If the closing admin decides to delete, I suggest that the addition to the main BBB article also be undone. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To change the subject there also also sites mentioning an unrelated new season of Bakugan under a different name BAKUGAN: NEW VESTROIA and barring an elaborate hoax the sources for this one are more numerous and appear to be more reliable than sources for the fan fic in question. ] ]. The google serach in question was ] if someone wants to look at the rest of the sources. In short if any are of the two are real it is more likely new vestoria. --76.71.208.23 (talk) 00:59, 11 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 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Responsible drug use (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing nomination for IP. Reason on edit summary was:

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks like a well written article on a sensible subject with good references to reliable sources. It's too in-depth to merge to the more general harm reduction article. JulesH (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I would have to say this is one of the better articles I have seen on AfD. This seems a clearly notable topic with references from reliable sources. I would argue it needs a little Wikification and cleanup, but the article is a quality article about an important and notable topic. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is basically about one paper and that's it. There is no significance outside of the summary of the Gould paper. If not, then merge to Harm Reduction it could be cited and condensed to one reference in the larger article. I'm sorry, but suggesting trip guides for psychedelics and making obvious statements about how it is hard to use illegal drugs reposnsibly because they are illegal does not an article make.--2008Olympian 08:44, 5 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) 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Seems pretty unencyclopedic to me. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I tagged this article for cleanup. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - 'responsible drug use' is not the same topic as 'harm minimisation'. The article needs a good edit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are citable sources. Responsible and illegal are two different things, and it is certainly possible for people to do responsible things which are illegal-- this happens all the time with bad laws (example: fugitive slave laws). More to the point, during alcohol prohibition when many aspects of manufacturing and sale of certain alcohol products was illegal in the US, it was still just as possible to be a responsible user of alcohol, as it is now. Nor is illegal psychoactive or narcotic drug-use automatically always "recreational," except by somebody's very poor definition. SBHarris 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Harm reduction Reading the article makes it clear that it is not really a separate topic. The first section is about a particular not notable book chapter, and the others are miscellaneous information that belongs in the main article if it isn't already there. DGG (talk) 05:18, 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 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article is not built from independent, reliable sources (WP:V), and does not explain how it meets the notability guidelines (WP:Bio) - level of activity is not an indication of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 17:39, 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) 00:44, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't Leave Me in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Repost, but may not qualify for a G4 (see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Don't Leave Me in Love). Album has no professional reviews, only sources are a fansite and last.fm, both very unreliable. Dierks is notable without a doubt, but there's nothing about this album. Seriously. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Granted this album has no good sources, it is very rare and was only released to a small market. It needs to be given a chance though. I know it exists because I have the songs and the lyrics are correct. If any one in the Knowledge community owns this album, I hope they come forward. Publichall (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though I'm sure it exists, there's really nothing I can do to prove it right now. I have a copy of the article saved if you think this article needs to be deleted until more sources can be found. Publichall (talk) 02:54, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No content, no references, just a dicdef & list `'Míkka>t 03:37, 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) 00:26, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. simply being a radio presenter is not necessarily notable. Very limited third party coverage in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 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) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is no evidence that Wyatt headed the Melbourne sports bureau or headed SBS sports. I've found no evidence that he was more than just a sports reporter. . Even his own website makes no mention of him heading sports at SBS.Michellecrisp (talk) 05:32, 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. MBisanz 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudolf's Wasteland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes a future product that is not yet complete. It is unclear whether the product is a computer game, a demo, or a social networking utility. It is unclear whether it will be commercial or free. The product does not appear to have acquired notability. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:25, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Far East Masonic Benevolence Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article, orphaned since September 2006, fails to indicate the notability and importance of this trust fund set up in 1893. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:43, 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) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Keep. The fact that the fund is the subject of its own law, Masonic Benevolence Fund Incorporation Ordinance (Chapter 1034 of the Laws of Hong Kong), is enough to demonstrate notability, There was probably coverage when it was founded many years ago, but Google News probably won't find Hong Kong newspapers from 1893. I don't know if the South China Morning Post has digitized its newspapers from that era. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with the notability established per Eastmain, the sources are a cleanup task.- Mgm| 09:10, 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 keep. MBisanz 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Culver City Boys 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Completely non-notable organization, all references are in passing, plagued with original research issues, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 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) 00:22, 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 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A youth player who hasn't played an official match for Ajax and afaict hasn't played an official match for Odense either. Aecis·(away) 09:43, 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) 00:21, 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 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I Give You Give remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single--failed to chart. roux  12:13, 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) 00:21, 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 no consensus. MBisanz 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable local grocery stores. roux  14:59, 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) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - my instinct is that a company (or a chain of franchised stores) that no doubt has many customers and turns over a large amount of money and is part of daily life for many people and many towns is inherently notable. I am concerned that the information herein should be obtained from secondary sources, but that is not a reason to delete the article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Richard Cavell. There are loads of stores in the chain (the list is very incomplete) and it is notable in Newfoundland and Labrador. NeonFire (talk) 13:48, 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 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable sandwich. Already covered in Primanti Brothers. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 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) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the other sandwiches from the "sandwiches" article deserve their own pages, then so does the Pitts-burgher. It's as simple as that. And yes, it's called the Pitts-burgher. Here's the proof: http://www.primantibrothers.com/menu/city/strip/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardplaya (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment- I believe you are reading the menu wrong. Primanti Brothers have a, as in one, sandwich that is called the "Pitts-Burgher Chess Steak", their No #2 seller! However, that is not what makes Primanti Brothers notable. What makes Primanti Brothers notable is how they make ALL their sandwiches with fries and coleslaw on them. Hence, delete. ShoesssS 11:15, 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 redirecting The Bagatelle Card Club → The Adventure of the Empty House, and The Tankerville Club → The Five Orange Pips. keep Killer Evans. - Mgm| 11:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bagatelle Card Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable and generally un-necessary as an article. The subjects have no significance to anything. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - In 100 years the articles will still be correct and factual, yes, they are about secondary characters in novels but extremely notable ones. My main reason for keep is that I do not see how this harms wikipedia or does a disservice to a person using it. OTOH maybe it is too obscure and sets a precedent that every little detail for every fictional work (ie Pokemon, Simpsons, Family Guy, ) can be detailed in numerous articles leading to 1,000s of article fragments resembling cruft. --Faradayplank (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    All I would say is that only one is a character; the other two are simply fictional places mentioned once in passing. None of these meet any sort of notability threshold. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If someone was interested the content could be merged, as one page already has a proposal. I don't think my arguments for keep are very good, nor are the articles exceptional. They certainly only have notability based on inheritances from the books. My Weak keep is as weak as they get. --Faradayplank (talk) 21:40, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep for Killer Evans, as the principal figure in a medium-important Holmes story--the problem here is that there is nothing much to say about him that is not relevant to the story itself and that would belong in the same article. I'd say Keep here primarily because of NOT PAPER--the duplication does not matter, and the tories are famous enough that the principal villain in any one of them is notable. But I could also see merge--one story is like one episode, & it is not one of the most famous of the stories.
Merge/redirect for The Bagatelle club -- it is not notable. It's pure background, and nothing about it is of any particular importance in the story.
Merge'/Keep for Tankerville, although The Tankerville Club plays even less role in either of the stories, I think either it or The Tankerville Case needs an entry, because of the reference to one of the many cases that the stories mention, and have been objects of speculation and fanfiction ever since. At the least it needs a merge, because people will come across the name and not know its not actually a story. DGG (talk) 05:15, 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 redirect to One Life to Live children#Jack Manning. I've deleted the page as the concensus seems to say, but redirected in my capacity as an editor because Richard's idea seemed logical. Mgm| 08:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable child actor with only a single minor role (probably non-speaking) to his credit. — TAnthony 21:52, 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) 00:18, 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. Mgm| 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kautz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Electric Tickle Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. The only coverage I can find is the reference mentioned in the short interview in The New York Magazine "look book", which is far from significant coverage.
I redirected Kautz' band Electric Tickle Machine article to his biography, thinking that Kautz was notable at that point. The band fails WP:MUSIC though, too, with only one additional name drop (in Welsh).
Amalthea 22:00, 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) 00:18, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Kesac (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A State Of Trance 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been deleted after an AfD before and was re-created within 5 hours of the closure of that AfD. Subsequent speedy (G4) was declined, because the album had been released since the previous AfD. A prod with reason "article on an album without any reliable independent sources. Article consists of little more than track listing, with links to promotional websites" was declined with stated reason "sources ARE reliable" (they may be, but they are not independent). In the more than 2 months that have passed since, no sources indicating notability for this album have been forthcoming. A Google search results in some track-listings, some websites where the album can be bought (or downloaded using torrents), and the website of the artist himself. Given the lack of reliable third-party sources: delete. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 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 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced BLP, does not appear to be a notable artist, possibly even a hoax: I can't find any Google hits about him. Most Google hits appear to be about a musician of the same name, or match the German words Kasper weiß ("Caspar knows").  Sandstein  21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The artist looks to be in his seventies. There's no point in having an article about him as he probably won't release another record; that is, if he even exists at all. As noted above, there are no Google hits on him, only for a musician of the same name. TopGearFreak 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Clear cut hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, I'm inclined to believe that this might be a clever hoax. If he's so important as the article claims, there's no way that there can be zero google hits for him. Chamal 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Explaination he is most certainly not a hoax. i have several survey books of contemporary german art that is in. i work at an organization that he did a project with in 70's. i posted this article because i teach a class on visual art here and i use his work to teach students every semester. perhaps i should rewrite so as not to imply that he widely known. i do understand that he is not a very well known artist in america (although many german artists know his work quite well). there is book of his being translated in english, so hopefully that will change and he will become more well known in the future. however, if rewriting to not over blow his importance is what is needed, then i can do that. also, so you know, weiß is in fact the correct german for Weiss. it translates in english into White (not 'knows'). it is a very common german name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit-art-locale (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was about to close this as a delete. It clearly looks as if this fellow existed, but what I'm uncertain of upon reading the article is the significance of his work. The article doesn't indicate why he is notable. I ask Mit-art-locale: why was he notable? What were his pieces of work. Please add these to the article. I'm going to move this to the most recent AfD page so it will run for another 5 days -- Samir 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Samir 23:45, 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.
  1. Health Through God's Pharmacy: ISBN 13: 978-3-85068-124-7

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

↑