Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

There are no reliable third-party sources for this article. As such, it fails WP:V and WP:N. (Previous AFDs resulted in deletion, and no consensus, which can be clarified now.) May or may not require a delete and salt. Randomran (talk) 23:58, 9 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Also nominating:

DJ Sharpnel discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Artists fail WP:MUSIC - no assertion of notability, and their music is self-published. None of the references qualify as WP:RS. Recommend Delete. // Chris 23:52, 9 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable. Even a google search thinks it is misspelled. Can't find verification through reliable sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:35, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable character, hardly warrants her own article - suggest that if not deletion, merge with List of minor Blackadder characters ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is see 'no sources at all. Did i miss something? Not even a ref/notes section.Yobmod (talk) 08:04, 10 October 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 G1. Spellcast (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested deletion of nonsense biography   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:48, 9 October 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. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cinterion Wireless Modules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam and copyvio. Previous deletion attempt contested.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Keep based on sources. Good job with it Eastmain. RockManQ 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I brought my deletion request from delete to weak delete; I would like to know though: can you understand French. How did you translate the foreign source? RockManQ 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. RockManQ 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heck... if I could find sources then the artcle can be salvaged. Even Google News] has lots to offer. Since it has coverage in reliable sources that speak toward its notability, its a matter of cleanup and not deletion. Schmidt, 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I am working on expanding the article. Much of the coverage in GoogleNews consists of press releases (which are traditionally not held to count for notability) but there is sufficent coverage elsewhere to justify inclusion. Icewedge (talk) 23:50, 9 October 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 Already Deleted by User:B, via G1, (NAC). RockManQ 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Nonsense. Previous deletion attempt was contested.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:35, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable product. If there's a CSD category that this falls under I would have marked it that way. However, I couldn't identify one. Deadly∀ssassin 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the comment about Conan O'Brien. If the late news pundits have already picked it up, then it is likely to meet "household name" criteria for notability. Dlohcierekim 04:24, 12 October 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. kurykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

If I understand precedent correctly, reality show participants aren't considered notable unless their importance has also been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. This particular person finished eighth on a season of Project Runway, and in my opinion, does not have the sources that would make her notability clear. I searched google briefly and didn't find the kinds of sources that I thought met WP:RS. Prod removed by creator, who appears to be Carlie Wong herself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I, myself, am not Carlie Wong, but the only wikipedia I planned on creating was for Carlie Wong (thus the username). And if Kelli Martin, Kit Pistol, Kevin Johnn, and Diana Eng can have articles for Project Runway when none of them are notable (and their articles are otherwise stubs), then Carlie Wong should be able to have one, too. Carlie Wong has shown a collection at L'Oreal Fashion Week and is preparing to show again in October. The four designers I have named above have never shown at a prestigious fashion week. So if they have this "notability" then why doesn't Carlie Wong? Perhaps propose to delete their articles?

I do understand you are trying to keep wikipedia orderly and the best it can be, so I appreciate you carefully checking my article (now with refrences/citations and celebrity clientele to come in the next few hours/days). So I really hope that this article doesn't have to be deleted, because I really do believe it is notable.

If there's any way you see the article can be improved as a matter of rhetoric, do let me know.

Thank you, Brett CarlieWong (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Wong is noted for Project Runway Canada and for L'Oreal Fashion Week. That's two events going on three. But if you really do feel strongly about deleting it, please do so. You are the experts, not me. So I'll completely understand if you do. No worries. :)

thank you for your consideration.CarlieWong (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Query: Could someone knowledgeable advise, if you strip out the Project Runway thing, at what point would showing a collection at a Fashion week cross the notability threshold ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Losing contestants on reality shows aren't notable, but neither are high school football coaches like Mark Mangino: they can be notable simply by having multiple reliable sources, and neither being the losing contestant nor being a high school football coach disqualifies them from notability. Wong seems to have about five different reliable sources on this article, and (as the unsigned comment says) for different events, too, so I can't see how this person fails the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I don't know why someone would make a username based off a real person if they are not said person. Even if they aren't, it's just going to lead people to believe that they are.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If Carlie Wong is so notable then Biddell should have a page, since he won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.247.26 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails notability requirement per WP:Baseball. Millbrooky (talk) 21:15, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This reads like a fansite / advert, is poorly referenced, and makes no credible claim of notability. I have chased down the references for convenience:

The references do little to provide context on the subject of the article:

  • "Hernan Santiago: Recording Engineer". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
  • "The Lab: Ask Duro". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
  • "Kingz Kounty available at Tower Records". Mentioned as one of 5 producers on the record.
  • Baker, Soren (2002-04-11). "VH1 Kingz Kounty Review". VH1.com. Mentioned briefly as "promising" in passing in a longer article.
  • Buschmann, Uwe (2003-05-07). "German Kingz Kounty Review". Plattenkritiken. Mentioned once in passing on a German language web page about the album Kingz Kounty.
  • Baker, Soren (2002-04-07). "Neil Young Tries on a New Hat". Mentioned in a one-paragraph blurb on Kingz Kounty in a series of notes after an article.
  • "Ian London Productions". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
  • "Big Sound Music Documentary" (2008). Article subject is conducting an interview broadcast on YouTube, not the subject of one.
  • "Tony Dawsey - Discography" (2007-09-11). No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
  • "MasterDisk Studios". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.

The creator of the page has, since my original tagging of the page, made several edits to the page in the form of removing tags and tweaking the references, but has made no material changes to the content or actually improved or provided additional references.

Bongomatic (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - having your name mentioned in passing in a few articles - however important the publication might be - is a far cry from being the subject of those articles. I see no legitimate claim to Knowledge (XXG) notability. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal How about I reduce the article to a stub and take out the trivial material. As I've said before he is a credible producer with production credits on two commercially released CDs (Kingz Kounty and Bro Kin Haylow). As per wikipedia guidelines: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He satisfies the notability requirement because he has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (LA Times, VH1, and the German article) whose source is independent from the musician itself and reliable. Therefore if I remove everything else the wikipedia guidelines should be satisified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPercy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of states that formally recognise the independent Republic of Slovenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short, incomplete, and very useless list. Fixman 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Short and incomplete means sources have to be found that make the list up-to-date. Useless is in this case really a matter of opinion; ask someone from Slovenia...
Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:01, 9 October 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. -- Longhair\ 03:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional planet does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:50, 9 October 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. -- Longhair\ 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:49, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Laurentian Wesleyan Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a fairly recent church (for a church that is) written entirely by the pastor himself (see the talk page) with little evidence of notability, that is, it has a website, and was written about about in the local newspaper because it sends books around the world. While this is a worthy cause, its nothing unique. Jac16888 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep--(Pretty much copied from talk page:) As it is, the church isn't really very notable--there are simply few references to it, to put it mildly. Besides, what is a serious concern is the extensive, extensive "Current Events" section, which reads like an advertisement--those things aren't really events, and if they're current events, they are not the kind of thing one should find in an encyclopedia. Current events belong in a newspaper. Summarizing that whole paragraph into a sentence or two and moving it up in the article might allay some editors' concerns. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 October 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 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Smith Hall (Anderson Univ.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing to show that this student dorm is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, or any different from a hundred others. PROD removed by author saying "renovations are significant and notable." No, they're not: this is material for the campus website, not for an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I agree completely. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, you could certainly add some of this information to the Residential Buildings section of the University article, keeping in mind the balance of the whole article. JohnCD (talk) 07:43, 11 October 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. Editors can feel free to redirect as appropriate. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A Piece of the Action (Robot Chicken episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I usually prefer to merge/redirect subpar episode articles to keep the page histories around for theoretical future improvements, but the Robot Chicken articles are just bad (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT combined with WP:LISTCRUFT), and I see no potential whatsoever. For "A Piece of the Action", I found nothing reliable on the first two Google pages, and not a single hit on Google News/Scholar/Books. I nominate this episode article as a test to see where consensus goes, and intend to merge/redirect/AfD/do_nothing_with the remaining RC episode articles accordingly. – sgeureka 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whether the current article is good or bad is besides the point. The only relevant question is whether the subject deserves an encyclopedia entry, and like any other widely watched movie or best selling book, the answer here is yes. The article itself should and will be improved with time. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    This episode is neither a widely watched movie nor a best selling book, so your comparison is lacking. What do you want to use to improve the article when no reliable sources exist (as seems to be the case)? – sgeureka 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    On the contrary; more people watch this TV series than read the books on the top of the bestselling books list. The comparison is conservative, if anything. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    So you'd argue the October 10, 2008 issue of the New York Times should get an article because The New York Times has a circulation of a million? Sorry, that's not how notability works on wikipedia. – sgeureka 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    Sgeureka, there's no reason to get snotty. I've been here at least as long as you have, and probably closed as many AfDs as you have participated in. We both know WP:N inside and out, and the popularity, longevity and number of cultural references to a mainstream media work does imply notability. Robot Chicken episodes will be rerun in syndication for years to come, and episodes and themes in them are already being references by other works (e.g., Family Guy). While this specific episode may not have the enduring importance of The Satanic Verses or Fahrenheit 9/11, it is a well-known staple of our culture. I don't think having a separate article is unreasonable. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    I apologize if I came across as snotty; that was not my intention. So will you please point me to the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (nutshell of WP:N) for "A Piece of the Action" so that we're no longer running in circles? Because, as I already stated in the nom, I was unable to find any. – sgeureka 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough; without much effort I was able to find one on IMDB's Alien vs. Predator article. A quick search returns numerous other references for that Alien vs. Predator chess match, but I don't have the time to sift through the bulletin boards and blogs to find the reliable secondary sources, nor to go through the other bits in that episode. There are 60 episode articles here, and it will take time until all are properly referenced. Merging them all into one article will kill this effort. Owen× ☎ 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    As you likely know, IMDb is not a reliable source and can't be used for anything other than cast lists (the rest is user-generated). Plus, if I read this particular IMDB page correctly, "A Piece of the Action" spoofed "Alien vs. Predator", a sign that Alien vs. Predator is notable, not the other way around. As this AfD concerns only one episode, interested RC editors just need to demonstrate the notability of "A Piece of the Action" at this time. The notability of the other 60 RC episodes is a question for later, after this AfD. – sgeureka 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — Aside from the the WP:IDONTLIKEIT tone of the nom, article fails Knowledge (XXG) is not for plot summaries. There also exist no verifiable sources establishing why this episode may be notable. MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and set Redirect to Robot Chicken. There is no special notability outside the series or that universe. Schmidt, 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The episodes does not establish notability and it is very unlikely that it ever will amount to anything. TTN (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into an episode list. I can't speak for all the RC episodes, but I can't find any RS for any of this episode, but I can for the season. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If TTN is calling for it to be deleted, it must be completely worthless. Delete. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 October 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 Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. kurykh 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This character article does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:32, 9 October 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 Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. kurykh 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:31, 9 October 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 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be expandable beyond a dicdef. Only sources are an ep of The Simpsons and an article in the Onion, neither of which really add anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn sources added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per major improvemets. Nice job!! delete as Knowledge (XXG) is not Wiktionary. Schmidt, 18:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETION... Less is More A good article could be written about this type of poster, which usually has a conversation-starting picture, a word, and some cliche that is supposed to inspire office employees (example "TEAMWORK" followed by "We're all in this together"), and it's still not impossible that that would happen. This article dates from the "Simpsons days" of Knowledge (XXG), when a page frequently had a reference to "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy". I'd reconsider if someone wants to take a shot at improving the article, but if it hasn't happened in two years, I'm not expecting anything this week. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Time to reconsider, Mandsford: since you left your comment, UncleG has placed tons of obviously reliable sources on the article, making it quite suitable and a fine example of a short Knowledge (XXG) article. Notability is now demonstrated. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 9 October 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 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Commenters beware, this article is deceptively referenced. The artist in question fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Blogs, youtube, myspace, et cetera are not acceptable sources for biographies of living people. JBsupreme (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Then don't break the law, and be thankful that others have politely fixed your mistake. Delete for failing wp:music policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:29, 10 October 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 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 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 G12. No objection to User:Eastmain recreating the page from the temporary version that he has written but it really could do with some substantive content first. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Berean Christian High School (Fairview Heights, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable grade school, fails notability ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Article has now been tagged as a significant copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - speedy on what basis? There is no speedy cat for schools. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is it a High School or a Grade School? Schmidt, 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: From article history - K-12. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Response Thanks for clearing that up as the nom called a grade school and I thought I was missing something. Being a high school, though associated with all lower grades, makes a difference. Schmidt, 22:10, 9 October 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. Doesn't seem notable to me either but the references available confer that it is so it's a keeper. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only a "brief" flurry of "info" after it got a Yahoo! "pick". Doesn't "seem" very "notable" at all, what with "only" two "sources". Ten Pound "Hammer" and his "otters" • 18:06, 9 October 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. Without prejudice towards later recreation if at some point the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Endgame: Singularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability of this game isn't apparent, and the first thing on the game's home page, after the Google ads, is "I am currently looking for a job (willing to relocate as needed). I am skilled with both Python and Linux, along with assorted other languages. Feel free to contact me using the username evilmrhenry at this domain." I think the article may be more about attracting publicity than about benefiting Knowledge (XXG). —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Having a few hundred Google hits does not confer notability nor make something encyclopedic. I can Google my name and get at least 100 hits; if I worked at getting my name on websites, I probably could increase that to several hundred. I don't have a Knowledge (XXG) article, nor should I. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Provisional delete as I cannot find any information in reliable sources to verify the content of this article. Knowledge (XXG) cannot publish articles without being confident in their veracity. I will reconsider if substantial reliable coverage is found. the skomorokh 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Considering that the page was created by a user who has been active since January on a number of articles, and that the article itself is just a bare bones description of the game, the fact that the developer is touting his services on the homepage has little bearing on whether this is spam or not. I don't see any, just a stub without sources demonstrating notability. As far as that's concerned, there are two decent sources, Jay is Games and Play This Thing (a site ran by Greg Costikyan) here and here. Someoneanother 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it started to sink in on me today that this is the game's home page and it's some guy's hobby page, not a slick commercial page. I'm relenting.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 October 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 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Music Appreciation Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable, significantly non-influential private music lovers' club located inside the United Nations. However, I might consider rescinding the nomination if evidence is presented to show the club appreciates the music of my favourite group, Papa Bear and His Oompah Band. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:44, 9 October 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. -- Longhair\ 03:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

More neologism shenanigans. Oh, all of this AfD work is soooooo boach! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:34, 9 October 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. -- Longhair\ 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

To its credit, it sounds like a damn fun movie. To its discredit, however, it doesn't pass WP:MOVIE. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 9 October 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 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a list of excessively elderly Italians. I am sorry, but I don't see the notability of this entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete That, and it's likely to fluctuate from month-to-month as people get older and others die. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Alone, that's a very unactionable oppose. Are yuo saying that we should delete any article on ITN because it changes so much. Best, —Ceran 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I think any list of supercentenarians, regardless of nation, inherently fails WP:NOTNEWS. Remember, not everything covered by RS's is Wikipediaworthy, and simply living long is not a particularly encyclopedic attribute. I am not so naive as to believe this is current consensus--I have seen few arguments based on WP:NOTNEWS succeed lately, yet it remains our policy and should determine the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete --otherlleft (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think that if you had left the article for longer than 14 minutes after its creation before nominating it for deletion, it might have developed into something like list of French supercentenarians or list of British supercentenarians? Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Close, & Renominate after a week or so if not improved; keep for now. This kind of rush to assume a article cannot be made is not fair to contributors.DGG (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close per comment by Uncle G and renominate if it does not improve. Patience is a virtue. Schmidt, 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although closing the discussion would be appropriate as well. I honestly don't see anything wrong with nominating an article within 14 minutes after it has been posted, rather than making a nomination later. The author of the article chose, wisely, to put in a lot of work before posting it. The nominator raised a valid point as to whether the topic is notable; as Uncle G's response confirms, keeping track of supercentenarians (who have lived at least 110 years) has been an ongoing project on Knowledge (XXG). Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - fails RS and V. -Kittybrewster ☎
  • Keep Although the article isn't the best verified at the moment, it could well become verified: supercentenarians are often notable (if nothing else, because the media tend to cover people who have lived so long), and it has quite well-defined criteria. To answer Jclemens: this article includes already-dead people, so the only maintenance for the death of a person on the list would be to note their death; while there's a template (used near the top of the British list, for example) that automatically updates their ages daily. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – the topic is certainly notable and it's not clear why Italians have been picked from Category:Lists of supercentenarians. The British list includes quite a few sections (at the end) for people whose individual articles were afd'd and merged. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Obvious good faith contribution and actually kind of interesting. My major concern would be how this article would stay up to date. Would a section have to be added for "deceased" Italian supercentenarians and as they die they are moved there? Over time, wouldn't that section become large and less useful? --Quartermaster (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, as you can see with the British and French lists, dead people on the lists are simply noted as being dead; it's no less helpful to have information on past supercentenarians than it is for living ones. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, (sorry Eco)...I don't think you should of brought it here right after it was created. Give it a week month or so, then bring it back. RockManQ 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep valid topic and common article type here that appears to have concensus for notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not recognised as a valid argument for keeping an article. And there is no policy requiring that X-number of days or hours need to pass before a new article is put up for AfD -- the argument for keeping the article because it is brand new is an appeal to sentiment, not a confirmation of policy. Thanks.Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't being used as a reason to keep, but certain classes of articles ARE considered notable by concensus, such as Places (city, village, etc.), High Schools (and higher), and in this case, Supercentenarians. Precedent is not the same as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it is based on previous concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, and I side with User:otherlleft that the other lists could easily be held up for AfD inspection -- I don't believe the other lists were ever challenged for AfD, so it isn't so much a case of precedent as having the other lists flying under the radar. Knowledge (XXG) is not the Guinness Book of World Records and breaking a record for excessive longevity is not synonymous with genuine notability -- particularly when you can compile a list of multiple people who live past 100. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You can compile a list of multiple people who have recorded and published music albums as well. And it may be that the other centurian articles have not been up for AFD because there already exists a concensus that the topic is notable. (implied concensus due to no objections) An AFD is not required to build concensus, and in fact, it is more of a last ditch effort to build one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. AfD regulars also know that any article that is brought back immediately after a discussion closes in favour of Keep or No Consensus/Keep will almost automatically receive a Speedy Close. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The original research is the DOB and DODs. There is one source, a questionable 2007 HTM document.
  • Keep These people are only noteable due to their extreme age 110+, any individual articles would likely remain perma-stubs, so it seems reasonable to put them in a list article. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Actually, seems pretty notable in all guises. A list of all these people is helping organize the group as well, so it's not really hurting us in any way. Strong keep. —Ceran (Strike!) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin Votes claiming that age equals notability are false. Age in itself is not covered by any wikipedia notability guidelines. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:52, 13 October 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 lolcat. kurykh 05:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Uncategorized, unfocused, no real sources about the actual meme, just blogs and Urban dictionary. Was previously redirected to Lolcat which I think is a lousy idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect, while I seem to recall its had some kind of mention in the Time Magazine article on LOLcats (which I don't have a link to and can't verify at the moment, if anyone else can link it, please do just so I know I'm not going crazy), its just not significant enough on its own to warrant its own entry. So I'm thinking a redirect to either lolcat, meme, or image macro, with a few sentences in whichever article covering it. And if necessary, is it possible to salt a redirect so we don't have to go through this again? (Unless of course, somehow the lolrus manages to get enough notability to earn a real article that is). And at least I didn't make the "NOOO they be stealin my redirect!" joke... Until now. Sorry. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Coment These searches , , seem to show notability may be out there. Have not had time to dig. Schmidt, 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect back to lolcat, else delete. Nothing here to build an article around, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Late time the article was nominated for deletion, the decition was "merge", which was never done. Contents was not moved to lolcat article (or was removed from that article), actually poor lolrus was not even mentioned at lolcat article. Plus the meme was still popular years after it appeared. That's why I restored the article. "Uncategorized" is the problem that can (and will) be solved in few minutes. Unfocused? Sorry, I don't quite get it, can you please explain what do you mean? "No real sources" probably means "no reliable sources", and is the only real problem about the article I can think about. I'll work on finding reliable sources and adding them to the article... And please note that the fact that a certain image macro was published at ICHC on a certian date is definitly a source good enough for this article. Netrat (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect back to lolcat, else delete - no reliable sources does matter a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 12 October 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 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

God Bless the American Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The American Plague (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable album. Poorly written. Fails WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, Pharmboy, I wish every contributor who added poorly written and poorly referenced articles to the pile would get an electric shock! Cause every time someone does, we're all running around discussing and looking for references and all--and that's the author's work. But you do have my blessing re: Myspace... Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone is a good author, so the short, poorly written stuff doesn't bother me as bad IF it is a truly notable subject. Then if I go and source it, at least I feel like I did something worthwhile. (spent two hours sourcing a children's book series last night, and I dont have kids...ugh.) Hell, I'm not a great author either, I just do what I can when the topic is clearly notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure--but what I'd like to see is the author spend two hours sourcing it! Were they good? I do have kids :) BTW, more importantly, writing well is part of the game--writing poorly (or speaking poorly) is a surefire way of not getting the attention one perhaps deserves. It is also a way of inviting readers to look for notability, and that's an important step. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 October 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 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable philosophy. Bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy.  Sandstein  16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I flagged it A7 when I saw that the website for the philosophy/book does not exist and points only to the web forum. The web forum has two registered users, and two posts. A Google search for Cybalism did not turn up any obvious sources that would speak to notability. Newsaholic (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The website does exist, and content for it will be added very shortly - the Forum is a stopgap. The reason for the lack of users/postings is the forum is only 24 hours old. Suggest you follow the link to the Gnosis website I provided as well. The book is almost complete and will be published shortly. Cybalism is spreading primarily by word of mouth and as such it won't be up on Google yet. The Internet is not the only source of notability. Splorkweasel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete True, the internet is not the only source of notability. However, this isn't notable either on or off the internet... the linked forum has 2 members! No, that's not a typo. Two. T-W-O. Two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy. Any article that starts out with "is a new " is pretty much a slam dunk as not notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete--no notability whatsoever in a not very well edited article. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys even still discussing this? It seems to me from such childish comments as "the linked forum has 2 members! No, that's not a typo. Two. T-W-O. Two", "Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy" and "a not very well edited article" show quite clearly that Knowledge (XXG) editors singularly fail to leave their egos on the doormat. You wield your "power" over what lives and dies with a biased hand, aimed more at massaging your own manhoods that giving the users of this site the information they want. Delete the article now, and while you're at it, delete my account as well. I want nothing more to do with wikipedia - my eyes have been well and truly opened. I have to thank you at least for that. Splorkweasel (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I was massaging my womanhood, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note Holy cow, sounds like someone needs someone else to rub something. For a bunch of philosophical, new age types, you guys are pretty uptight (both of you). You're harshing our buzz. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note sexiest AfD ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 11 October 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 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article attracted my eye as strikingly differing in style from the rest of wikipedia. Since I am not an expert in arts, I placed a number of tags for cleanup and deleted redundant categories. The author reverted these edits several times. For a month no one else was interested in fixing the page. Therefore reluctantly I decided to do something by myself. I did a bit with the top, but when I proceeded further, I was surprized to notice that apparently thorough references do not discuss the painting in question at all ! Instead, they support general discussions about arts, gynecology, etc. Neither the long bibliography has any relevance. So I used google and was further surpized to find that "gyn talk" -wikipedia "keith fox" gives a mere 7 hits. Therefore I conclude that the page must be deleted as rather nonnotable. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete in all but the rarest of cases, creative works (songs, fanfiction, artworks, etc) by non-notable people are not notable enough for articles. Also, it takes no great effort to debunk the article's claimed "sources" either, as pretty much all of them are books published long before these paintings even existed, and thus are highly unlikely to discuss the paintings themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete an elaborate essay based loosely on a non-notable artwork. Essentially OR, & this is not the pace for it. It could happen that someone enters an article on an artwork before they think of entering the one for the artist, though--that's not all that unusual, & we usually suggest reorganizing the article to be about the artist. Butthere is not the least indication that either of these are notable. There would need to me major exhibitions or third party published reviews .DGG (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) r
  • Delete--yes, the bibliography does not confer notability on the topic. Not a bad term paper for an art appreciation class, but that's not how Knowledge (XXG) works. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not establish how its subject matter meets Knowledge (XXG) notability requirements. --Icarus 03:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see from the article or the supplied sources how this meets our notability requirements. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RogueNinjatalk 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be of minor importance. Article seems a coatrack for gender and medicine issues. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per deleters. Doesn't meet notability standards. Johnbod (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is original research that fails WP:V. freshacconci talktalk 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This article seems disengenuous at best.....please let it go..Modernist (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There aren't enough independent, third-party reliable sources available to write a proper article. We need published reviews by legitimate art critics to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s basic WP:V requirements for an article on this subject. Joseph Levi, I see that you're a new editor. You may not know that what we mean by notable is "How much information has already been published about this?", and not "How important is it to the world?" Something that is incredibly important, but for which we can find no, or very few, independent, third-party reliable sources at this time is always deemed non-notable for the purpose of meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion policies. If proper reviews/art criticism becomes available later, then we can certainly re-create the article at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Notice I moved extended comment and response from the author of the article and others to Talk for this AfD. I've tried to explain the situation to him on his Talk page, including what he can do that might serve his purposes and perhaps ours. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 14 October 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#A7 as recommended by two comments here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability concerns here. The only thing I can see here that would possibly make this person notable is graduating cum laude from a college. The rest just seems like a resume. NuclearWarfare My work 16:18, 9 October 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 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rational data industry model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable model - essentially pure spam. (See also digital property framework another advert for the same company.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:18, 9 October 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 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Promotional article for an organisation offering singing lessons. No real claim of notability, only 122 google hits, including Wiki mirrors. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:11, 9 October 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. Editors can feel free to discuss possible redirects separately. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software with no reliable sources provided and none found. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 9 October 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 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:WEB; no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie 15:14, 9 October 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 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

While this information may or may not be factually correct (a Google search turns up nothing), the article is so poorly written that it defies attempts to recast it in standard English WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:01, 9 October 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 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Taking this to AfD rather than prod because this may be a case where sources will be pre-intertoobs. Claims of notability are iffy: early band in Pittsburgh punk scene and pioneers of a technique of unknown notability. One album released, no claims of charting or awards. No entry at allmusic, no reviews found at metacritic. Gsearch turns up tons of false positives, and my googlefu isn't narrowing it down well enough. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I was a student at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh from 1980 to 1983 and I saw them perform numerous times and I loved this band. It was a very original band which was at the same time very much of the moment, and it belongs in any history of punk rock and new wave music. Not everything interesting happens in New York. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:14, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software product by a redlinked company (deleted through PROD); article submitted by the marketing manager of the company. While the Milwaukee Business Journal reference is valid, I'm not finding other reliable, independent (ie not a press release) sources in gsearch or gnews. The MBJ article doesn't give me enough to rewrite without the advertising copy, previous prod has been contested, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 9 October 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, no argument for deletion given, original afd tagging by anon edit-warrior clearly made in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion, this AFD is part of an on-going edit war between an anon with a floating IP and other users. (The edit summary of an editor removing the AFD reads, "someone needs to study the correlation between vandalism and ethnicity.") I got dragged into this mess declining a speedy deletion added by the anon. He'd also added an AFD tag but failed to complete the discussion subpage and list the AFD. I removed both. He re-added both with an admonition to not remove deletion tags. I left a testy edit summary suggesting he complete the process and again declined the speedy. Another editor removed the AFD tag. The anonymous editor reverted but again did not complete the process. Pro forma nom, as I can't leave this hanging in Limbo any longer. See my "keep" below. Dlohcierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dzied. Should have crossed this particular "t". I guess I have to speak for the anon who started this. I'll assume good faith and say the anon feels the subject is not notable in that it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the subject lacks inherent notability. That the sources I listed are deficient. As pointed out below, he could not complete the process, and may not have realized that he was not finished. Unfortunately, I've not been able to establish a meaningful dialogue. Dlohcierekim 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if an anon refuses to talk, a proper solution IMO is to protect the article from anonymous (since the IP is floating and it cannot be blocked for disruption), rather than to drag other people into wasting their time. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Constructive edits are being made by anons. I'm assuming good faith because there may be some language barrier there. ACheers, Dlohcierekim 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors without accounts cannot complete the AFD process, because they are prohibited from creating new pages in the Knowledge (XXG): namespace. It probably wasn't the best approach to demand that someone complete a process that they are barred from completing. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The editor certainly could have asked for help or discussed on talk page, rather than edit warring, as the page history hows him doing. As it went 24 hours without any progress, I went ahead and completed the process. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Folk songs are probably inherently notable from the start because of their long-term cultural impact. The sort of thing a not-paper resource should include. (If we were talkin' about "mah noble Stewball," I'd know I was on terra firma. ) In attempting to source this, I've been limited by not only language barriers, but by alphabet barriers as well. However, I was able to find a number of mentions on the Internet. The Balkans is a region with a large number of languages, so there may be references I have missed. Hopefully, someone can help me out with the sourcing. So far, the editors of the article have not.
Appears notable--
Other potential sourcing--
Sadly, the edit warriors have not yet come here to say the article should be kept and why. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Reverting POV vandalism is different to edit-warring. The only reason the vandal wanted the page deleted was because he wasn't happy that his vandalism was being dealt with (and therefore he couldn't express his POV). BalkanFever 09:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--This is a most popular traditioanal and antologic macedonian song. --Raso mk (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. The bulgarian POV in this article is needless. They have allready own song "Černej Goro"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Lofty CFS Group. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironbank Country Fire Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a short and unreferenced article about a local fire authority. Grahame (talk) 13:45, 9 October 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. My nom was obviously poorly researched. To my credit, the articles are not new, yet are most all wholly unreferenced, giving no indication of notable singles, albums or members. Jennavecia 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Jennavecia 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Including with this nom:
Jennavecia 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jennavecia 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - significant chart activity in Billboard, also achieved two top 10 hits in the UK in 2001 (offline source: The Book of British Hit Singles and Albums), Google News search shows coverage in Rolling Stone, Music Week and several newspapers - group definitely seems notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Two UK Top 10 hits, plus major-label releases. It isn't hard to find reliable sources either, look here and here. sparkl!sm 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand several chart singles, releases on notable labels, seems good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Weird nom. Firing Squad (1996) is considered a classic, e.g. by Brian Coleman in Check the Technique, 2nd. ed., New York: Villard, 2007. ISBN 978-0812977752 pp. 276–288 (a whole chapter) while Peter Shapiro (who prefers First Family 4 Life (1998) and thinks Warriorz (2000) is better than both) notes that "Ante Up" (a "classic", in his words and in the words of most other people who know about the subject) and "Cold as Ice" were both top ten hits in the UK.(Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 pp. 259–261.) The greatest hits compilation 10 Years And Gunnin' (2003) is available on Columbia. 86.44.23.229 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep passes MUSIC on strength of chart hits alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 9 October 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. -- Longhair\ 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almighty 12th street players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable alleged "gang," no sources proffered, reliable or otherwise, article untouched since creation. A Google search turns up 32 hits , exclusively from this article and various other Wiki mirrors and self-editing sites; plainly someone wants to claim the gangsta mantle, but the world hasn't yet noticed. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V.  Ravenswing  13:32, 9 October 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 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Wholly insignificant character. No citations to third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Entirely plot summary. Redirect to appropriate target -- Chewbacca -- reverted by User:Ksempac since apparently I'm just "sneaky". Bringing it to AfD for community consensus that this Wookiee, marginally significant within the Star Wars universe, doesn't meet the notability threshold for such "detailed" coverage at Knowledge (XXG). --EEMIV (talk) 13:20, 9 October 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. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Verse 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not long enough and non-notable

Comment: Where does it say that? I see that it is published in Winnipeg, but that's not the same thing. On the contrary, it says that "CV2 is distributed to newsstands and readers across Canada, the United States and the rest of the big wide world.". The journal appears to have been running continuously for more than a quarter of a century, which suggests notability. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep established literary magazines deserve an article ... is the Winnipeg comment a joke?? Why does it matter where something is published? I can't remember why I started this article now - I probably found some reference to the magazinr somewhere and wanted to find out more about it, but Knowledge (XXG) didn't have anything. Of course the article hasn't progressed much since then! Certainly loads of room for improvement, but I think the essential nature of the notability stands. Stumps (talk) 05:42, 9 October 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 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I have moved all info to a more generic page, this would be PRODed, but someone contested. Natually, I vote Strong Delete'. ] (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect: All the relevant information has been moved to the Makuta (Bionicle) article, thereby rendering this one superfluous to requirements. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Despite the need for expansion for Bionicle on Knowledge (XXG), I believe this information can be easily included in the main Makuta (Bionicle) article, there is not that much information that requires a new page, in my opinion. Lesovikk1996 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 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 of . I write bureaucratese like this for a living, and I can tell from a mile away when someone copy-pastes governmentspeak from a government website into an article.  Sandstein  15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another local bureaucracy; anything special about this one? Biruitorul 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as a sub-national government. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • If Finland were a federal state with sovereign sub-national entities, then it might make sense to have articles on those governments, like we do for (say) Germany. But (except for Åland, for which we do have an article on its government) Finland is a unitary state, with power concentrated at the centre and very little devolution to regional bodies. Moreover, local councils are created by and can be abolished by the national government. (We don't, for example, have articles on too many of the 3000+ county governments in the US, also created by higher authorities - exceptions being very populous entities like LA County or Cook County - which, I might add, actually do some important things.) There's a nice red link under "Regional Council" here - let's delete this and write a couple of sentences about it there. Or, since they all do the same thing, write an article on regional government in Finland. But a stand-alone article on a toothless body is neither helpful nor wise, as someone will come along with articles on its 18 counterparts, and perhaps on similar sorts of county governments elsewhere, none of which would be especially useful to the project. Biruitorul 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Governmental body. 94.192.13.95 (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Southern Ostrobothnia — surely the government is a worthy topic to cover in that article, even if it's not a really notable topic by itself, which it isn't. We can always split it out if the government section of that article grows too large for the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 9 October 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 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Take A Worm For A Walk Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ok, a little weak but there are some assertions of notability. Having an album mixed by Iain Cook and a split album with DeSalvo (see Idlewild (band)) and another split CD probably isn't enough for notability. If the band members were connected, ok, but split albums probably don't qualify. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 30 September 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) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 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. gone, clear A7 TravellingCari 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Smith (Lismore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created about somebody who unsuccessfully contested preselection for the Australian federal election, 2007. Clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:01, 9 October 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 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable entertainer. No reliable sources to show why this person is notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD removed without reason. JD554 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He claims (it's an autobiographical article) to have made TV appearances. There are no reliable sources to back up any claims in the article apart from the non-notable competition. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:N, the reliable sources need to be "independent of the subject"—that rules http://www.uk-magic.co.uk (a directory listing written by the subject) and http://www.warble-entertainment.com (the agency he belongs to). The realitydigital.com reference doesn't show that he has appeared on TV and the remainder of the references are for an online competition of very dubious notability. There is nothing in the article that is verifiable to show that he meets any of the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. --JD554 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel as a magician he meets that criteria of WP:PEOPLE, when the "topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Further WP:Ent is only one of the "additional criteria" of WP:PEOPLE that follow the caveat "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Another of these additional criteria... one which precedes WP:Ent... is "Any biograhy", which allows "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". So, I can only address your statement "competition of very dubious notability", by pointing out that A) The contest spanned the globe, B) He won first place, and C) his win was verified in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I will continue to seek sources for his television performances. Schmidt, 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Being a magician doesn't make a person "worthy of notice", but being a notable magician would. If the competition was notable I would have expected to have seen something in a national newspaper rather than a local newspaper that covers the area the subject is from. There are still no reliable sources to verify him being a notable musician or the fact the competition is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 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) by KillerChihuahua. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

National skip share week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems like somewhat of a hoax. What further reinforces this sentiment is the fact that the event is not-notable, contains absolutely no external links or inline citations along with being orphaned and written in a contextually poor manner. Also user's first contribution. Flewis 12:43, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Nonnotable band. Keep having to fix bad wikilinks by original author (see history) and deleting references that are Forums, etc. Being on the radio a little doesn't make you notable. I've tried to clean it up to see if it would be ok, but author keeps reverting to wikilink stuff improperly, etc. so I give up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:BAND requires groups to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify via radio. This doesn't meet that or any of the others. tomasz. 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria but that (a great example of this is The Fall), but this band does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC critereon and the articles only attempt at notability is a list of five or so radio stations that the band allegedly gets airplay on. Doc StrangeLogbook 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria. Yes, that is why i wrote to qualify via radio. i.e. to qualify for notability status via the "radio play" criterion of WP:BAND (#11), which is the only one they come within a country mile of being able to claim. i also said the article doesn't meet "any of the others", i.e. any of the other 11 criteria of WP:BAND (#1 - 10 & 12). Please read again. Thank-you. tomasz. 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right you are. Doc StrangeLogbook 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being on the radio a little does not make a band notable. But the band was added to regular rotation on many stations, which meets the criteria for notability. Also fulfilling the criteria is the fact that the bands music was used repeatedly in two different network television programs Road Rules & Battle for Ozzfest. These aren't just claims... They are facts. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not here to argue with anyone. They are facts. I witnessed them. Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts. I've personally heard the band played in regular rotation on these radio stations recently and many others while the band was on tour in 2005. Please consider that this is a nationally touring act as well (yet another of the notability requirements. That's 3 total, with only one being required). The write up in "Arizona" Weekly Entertainment Magazine about a "Los Angeles" band actually verifies that they are a nationally touring act. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmercier (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You would do better to work within the guidelines here to try to keep the article, rather than using an emotional appeal (which is guaranteed to NOT work). A small amount of uncited material is allowed in an article for a while (thus, the reason the FACT tag exists) but in general, Original Research (your personal witnessing) isn't. You can easily shut everyone here up by simply providing enough verification using reliable sources. I never understand why people want to argue instead of just fixing the problem. If it can't be fixed, then that supports the idea of deleting. I probably save one or two articles per week that were overwhelmingly DELETE by first adding tons of citations, THEN saying something in the AFD about it, and watching others change their votes. Its called putting your money where your mouth is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. "Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts". Exactly. So till proper cites appear (no sign yet), Knowledge (XXG)'s policies do indeed restrict us from allowing it. Also the radio criterion doesn't fly as none of the quoted stations are national networks, and an article in a newspaper from a different state to the one the band are from doesn't come within a country mile of proving they have toured nationally. tomasz. 16:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Also note a "Darren Mercier" is the band's bassist. Tho' it could be someone else of that name, of course. tomasz. 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. I am the bassist. I'm not trying win anyone over with emotions. I don't understand how these facts could be more credible if they are coming straight from the source. Still, I don't need sympathy. But I simply don't know what you mean by "citations". I'm not here looking for free advertising. I would love to substantiate these facts for you. Problem is, I'm a musician and probably not as computer savvy as any of you. Perhaps I can have our record label, lawyer and management company send letters verifying these facts. Our first album is signed to a nationwide distribution deal with Sony/BMG. If I can verify this is it cool? But then we're back to me not knowing how to "cite" it. If you can ellaborate on how to properly "cite" these facts, I'll be happy to comply. I've read the policies but simply don't know where to begin. Thanks for your input. I look forward to getting it straightened out. Darren Mercier (The bass player) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article really should be written by an independent, third party. As it stands right now, your participation to this point violates Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on conflict of interest and also is strong evidence that this article is an advertisement. It adds more justification for deletion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This is why Knowledge (XXG) requires that the article is written by someone NOT in the band. You may mean well, but you also have information that is not written anywhere and can't be verified. All encyclopedia material must be verifiable. One of the basic tenents of Knowledge (XXG) is that we are not interested in TRUTH, we are interested in that which can be VERIFIED by independent parties (news papers, reputable internet sites, etc.) It is a core principal. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a very clear understanding. Ignorance is no excuse but it was all I had. Perhaps the information will be submitted by an independant when some of the facts are a bit easier to cite. Sorry for being a thorn in anyones side. Remove at will. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. The article seems to have just been created 5 days ago. Understandably the creation of the article by a band member brings up questions however many Knowledge (XXG) articles seem to have been started by people close to the subject and at some point they either take on a life of their own or are deleted. Five days seems too short to allow any article to grow, no matter who may have started it.Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 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 IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. kurykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Rush (1985 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Don't know where this album came from, but it's not mentioned anywhere in any official site or any list of albums I've ever seen. The guy has added in a bunch of references taken from the Jennifer Rush (1984 album) page which do not relate to this album. It could just be a budget release cobbled together from 2 different albums.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:54, 9 October 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. The consensus of the discussion was to delete, and the sourced coverage of the organization cited in the article appeared to be largely incidental. Xymmax So let it be done 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Beadling Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable youth football club which has won a few tournaments. Article claims it is the oldest club in the USA but there is no independent evidence to support this. Prod removed by article's creator without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The 'oldest team in the US' claim is repeated once on WVSPN and again on Explore PA History (note how they both say it is ONE of the oldest, not THE oldest). However, I don't feel this is enough to make this team notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Third-party sources seem to be rather thin on the ground, consisting mainly of directory listings. That's not to say youth teams aren't always non-notable (Wallsend Boys Club springs immediately to mind), but in this instance, I have to go with the nominator. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've gone about rewriting this article in attempts to see if it can be salvaged. Being one of the oldest soccer clubs in America and having a former NFL player playing on the team I think is grounds enough for notability. I've added a few sources and fixed the mistakes, and in general "wikified" it a little bit. Hopefully its easier to see its potential merits now, although it needs expansion. I also found a news article about the Beadling Soccer Club here, but I'm not sure I can use that in the article. --Banime (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The fact that it's one of the oldest U.S. soccer teams is interesting, but I don't think it establishes notability by itself. The fact that notable people have played on the team doesn't do it for me either; are all youth teams that athletes play on notable? I think not. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the general guideline for notability, and the given sources don't provide that; they all have only brief mentions of the club. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - even having produced multiple future professional players would not be enough to render a boys' club notable and this club hasn't even achieved that (only non-professional college players and one solitary pro in a different sport altogether, as far as I can see) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

* Weak Delete' Err...I really, really wanted to keep this one. However, no significant coverage in secondary reliable sources leads me to a weak delete. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Change to weak keep (about 10 seconds later). After rereading Nfitz comments above, I must say, being a 110 year old soccer club in the USA is inherently notable. Article is short, concise and provides a reasonable explanation for such a subject. No reason to delete; subject is verifiable. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike as G3, non-admin closure. — neuro 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

American Kid:The Devon Eaddy Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. I can find no sources for this article. I get ZERO hits on google. JavierMC 07:56, 9 October 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. delete. Consensus had coalesced around the non-notability of the radion station. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency (radio station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Speedy delete as a recreation of deleted material. Notability and verifiability issues raised in previous deletion debates have not been addressed. — mholland (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    Change opinion to delete, per Nyttend, below: I'd prefer to let this AfD run, on reflection. I cannot, however, find any substantial independent coverage for this student radio station. I'm also sceptical that much information beyond the mere fact of its existence can be reliably verified. — mholland (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't speedy delete Both previous discussions seem to be rather lacking in content, especially the first, so I'm uncomfortable with according them too much weight. As it is, I know that radio broadcasting stations in the USA are notable; are UK stations considered otherwise? I'm inclined to keep on this one. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd be inclined to keep this one. Student radio is pretty big here in the UK and this is a pretty funny article. As far as I can tell it sticks mostly to the facts, too. craigelaycock
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\ 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Beta Omicron Iota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I started off reverting a blanking of this page, but the blanker, an anon, had included an edit summary which caused me to look more deeply at the article. The anon was correct, this is all unsourced, and when I googled, I could not find anything on this organization other than our Knowledge (XXG) article. Apparently, there are some chapters of some frats that are called Beta Omicron Iota, but this does not appear to be them, nor does it appear to exist in the form the article purports. Unschool (talk) 04:57, 9 October 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 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete. On available evidence the subject does not appear to meet reasonable notability or verifiability threshholds for inclusion. Suject is author of a single nonfiction book, published by a small 'independent' press that (going by material at publisher Aegis Press's website) has published only 4 other titles, 3 by this and one other author, plus one likely out-of-copyright reprint of a 1930s book. The publishing house may likely be connected with, or set up by, the author(s) themselves. Discounting the dustjacket blurbs, Amazon reader reviews and 1 or 2 blog mentions, a search in the usual places—GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, JSTOR, WorldCat, etc—to see if the author or book have been cited, commented upon or otherwise mentioned by notable independent 3rd parties draws pretty much a blank, save for two general book reviews in not-very-prominent periodicals- one in the Journal of Religion and Health, another in Esoteric Quarterly. The 'book of the year' award comes from an otherwise quite low-key magazine ForeWord, a low circulation publ. apparently devoted to titles from small independent publishers. General ghits for the author/book are likewise at the low end of the spectrum. In addition there may well be a WP:COI aspect here, to judge from the article creator's other contribs consisting mainly of inserting links & mentions of the author & book. With no further demonstration of notability in the article, and no disrespect or opinion on author/book intended, ATM I can't see that this article meets N or V criteria for inclusion. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:15, 9 October 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 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Article is about a non-notable news organization. No reliable sources provided, none found. Author contested speedy and asked for community input, so here we are. I don't see where organization meets the guidelines for notability for either organizations or websites. TN‑X-Man 15:26, 30 September 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) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - 36 hits on Google, many of which are just refering to this article or are not independent of the project itself, and none of which would be a reliable source. The only reference points to the project's web site. Such a project has a long way to go before it would be notable enough for inclusion. gm_matthew (talk) 16:16, 10 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

USAG compulsory routines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not for lists of gymnastics exercises. Tikiwont (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well, Knowledge (XXG) is for lists of gymnastics exercises, in that a comprehensive article such as gymnastics has, and should have, an annotated list of the various forms of gymnastics. However, this is more of a curriculum than an encyclopedic list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed referring to stand alone lists of specific routines as this one and not to lists of exercises in general.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 30 September 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) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Listed at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Gymnastics -- ratarsed (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 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. kurykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable metal-core band from Norway. No refs and misses WP:MUSIC by miles. Delete.    SIS  22:41, 30 September 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) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea about specialised labels in this genre but they have at least two albums with Devil Doll Records, a label mentioned in several WP articles, e.g. Toilet Böys, Sonny Vincent, Dying Fetus, Half Man (band), The Napoleon Blownaparts (although for all I know, those groups may not be notable either). They also record for Black Balloon Records and Candlelight Records. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Update. I've copy-edited and formatted the article and added a few external links/sources. I remain neutral as I don't know enough about the genre or the notability guidelines for it to judge. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:09, 9 October 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 Tuesday (film). MBisanz 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meidan-i-Noor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax/spam for forthcoming film. Beyond Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and publicity for the film, there are only two Google hits, neither of which are reliable sources. chocolateboy (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect -- I am not absolutely certain that objects of this sort in what appears to be a minor movie are appropriate for even a redirect, though it should be mentioned in the article on the film. DGG (talk) 18:49, 9 October 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 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Warhead" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains speculation about a proposed but never made non-canonical James Bond film. The only ref is the name of a book. No pages link there. Reywas92 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep It is important to have information on wikipedia that people would be interested in and fans of James Bond would find this interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 October 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 per WP:SNOW. --Smashville 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable "film"; seems to be an article about a home project ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • My response to the deletion KEEP As the creator of this article I would just like to say that this film is based on a very notable piece of fanfiction by G Norman Lippert and almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film and Mr Lipperts fanfiction is noted enough to have its own wikipedia page Also the film is NOT a "home project" there are people from around the world working on this film. Luke A Crazyla112 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP! This is a fan film that is currently in production. There are articles all throughout wikipedia dedicated to other fan films created around various other works. Mr. Sanchez, you need more of a reason to propose a deletion of an article, other than not liking "home projects". Ed, if you want to contribute, how about doing some research and trying to make the article better. As for me, I can't wait to see this, little flick, come November. CampAnawannaDave 01:03, 9 October 2008 — CampAnawannaDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. Has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Crazy, you're welcome to claim it is notable, but neither that nor the notability of the original story makes it so. And Camp, please remain civil in discussions. Personal attacks hold no weight in a deletion discussion or in Knowledge (XXG) in general. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-canonical fan fiction without any independent coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think J.K. and Warner Bros. would have plenty of things to say about this fanfiction ever getting to the film stage, namely within the filling of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a vehicle for advertising in-production fan films based on fanfics. --Pixelface (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The creators of the JPHEC movie series receive no money or compensation for making the film and the whole film is made voluntary because the film makers love the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A noticeable fanmovie is no different to a noticeable fanfiction it just depends on who authorises fan work and who doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:NF. Covergae in blogs by a fanbase does not count as reliable and verifable. Schmidt, 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It makes no difference that this is a labour of love, or that people in more than one country contribute to it; it is not a notable work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly non-notable fan film. I also question the notability of the original novel; all the sources on its page are trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the article: "fan movie based upon G Norman Lipperts fan fiction". If this were any less notable, it would create a black hole of non-notability, eventually nullifying the notability of the rest of the universe and causing irreperable harm to the space-time continuum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because Knowledge (XXG) should be a website where people find about new releases (of any kind) and I am a fanatic inclusionist. Xammer (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN fanfic production. Precedent holds that fanfic and fanfic films are not notable except in the most extreme exceptions - basically the Star Trek fanfilms that have been nominated for Hugo Awards and feature notable production crew and performers are the only exception I'm aware of. Under the rules that have been set out, unless this is made by a major company, or receives third-party media coverage somewhere (and Knowledge (XXG)'s 20th Century-vintage rules don't allow blogs), or unless JK herself has authorized it, then there's not much can be done. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete - the very quintessence of non-notability (as well as being an advertisement for blatant copyright violation); the creator is advertising on his userpage for people to come here and "vote" to keep it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have read both of Mr. Lippert's well written and notable books and would really like to see this film. I think it is too soon to talk about deletion. Fan made films can easily become well-known. Rather than delete the article, it is possible to "merge" it with the book's page to keep the information available? Lady Hester--Lady Hester (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Lady Hester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • You have the cart before the horse. Before being documented inside Knowledge (XXG), things must be documented, by independent and reliable sources, outside of Knowledge (XXG), per our content policies. This is not a vote. Your effort would be better spent getting this film properly documented, by reliable sources, outside of Knowledge (XXG) than in trying to stuff a ballot that does not exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete. Unlike the fic, this has no third party coverage that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NF . Edison (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There do not appear to be any reliable third-party sources confirming this film's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crazyla112: "almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film"--nicely describes the scope of notability. Please close early to stop canvassing action here. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: no notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 10 October 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 Speedily deleted as an article with no substantive content. Article consisted entirely of a list of external links. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of image analysis software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Random list of ELs. Adoniscik 03:22, 9 October 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 as nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete recommendations. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgiana Bruce Kirby Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod contested with "Removed prod. Consensus at AfD is that all high schools are notable." I contend that subject be considered for deletion due to the nature of it being a private, for-profit organization which completely fails all general notability tests. Not that it's a conclusive test, but Google has no news articles about the subject. I swear there's no WP:COI here, I just contend that subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. —  X  S  G  02:32, 9 October 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 per rewrite.  Frank  |  talk  18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Studio job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability is questionable; the company clearly exists, but independent coverage about the company does not seem to be forthcoming.  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Company has won multiple awards, and is mentioned in published books here and here . Plus, in my opinion Biscuit selected for International Design Yearbook is enough by itself to merit an article. --Megaboz (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article and added some additional sources. I think it satisfies notability now. --Megaboz (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I thought there was enough to avoid a speedy here. Article was created by his production company, however I'm not finding any evidence of notability to back up claims so it's here for discussion. TravellingCari 02:00, 9 October 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) treelo radda 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chemical Feast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book does not appear to meet any of the 5 criteria set out in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). I have previously prod'ed it, but the prod was removed with the edit summary "famous author, well known book, look for reviews and other refs" - which is factually incorrect. The famous person, Ralph Nader, wrote the introduction, but the book itself is by the relatively unknown Jim Turner, who does not meet criteria 5 of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books) (The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.) NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

that deprod summary was my fault. I read too quickly & was careless enough to think it was Nader. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:48, 9 October 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 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital property framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism serving as a coatrack to promote a company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 9 October 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 Féile an Phobail. MBisanz 01:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Draíocht Children's Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anything special about this festival? Biruitorul 03:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:38, 9 October 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 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Last student standing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a survival contest run by a local radio station. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:30, 9 October 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 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eureka ITEA2 WellCom Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A European research project. No evidence of notability. The link to the ITEA 2 website - the programme running it - don't work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • keep - Knowledge (XXG) should grant this article existence on the basis of 1. It informs about a real, public/private funded project. 2. It contributes to the dissemination of science and of new technological breakthroughs. 3. It has no profit motive in mind.
  • keep - First of all I updated the link and now its works. This page is under progress. It is an European Research Project granted by Public Authorities. This project dissiminates its results in the main scientific conferences. -- Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - no reason why this page shall not be there (other European projects, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/MUSE_QoS_solution, also have their description). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.11 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Other projects are here, is not a valid reason to keep. Gtstricky 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


  • keep The reason for deletion is supposedly missing evidence of notability. A google search with key words "WellCom" and "ITEA" returns about 130 hits, of which about half are relevant, and of these again roughly 1/5 are from non-WellCom sources. Considering that the project has only existed about 1 1/2 year and not been overly active in profiling itself, this visibility is not too bad. In addition, the project has published in and have submitted to international, refereed conferences. The project covers a subject with much industrial and academic activity, some duplication of effort with other research projects should therefore be expected and allowed. The proposal for deletion seems to be justified also by a non-functioning link, this was easily corrected. I do agree that language can be brushed up and the article shortened (e.g. take out the second figure), this should be undertaken by project members if the article is not deleted. (Torbjørn Sund. Possible bias: Working within the WellCom team). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.47.109.183 (talk)
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." Please read WP:V and explain what sources meet those requirements. Gtstricky 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
see below my response --Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - Notable accodring to definition of notability.

http://www.internet2008.fr/spip.php?article480

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/item-display.cfm?id=146

http://www.atelier.fr/mobilite/10/06102008/mobile-nfc-tv-interactivite-communautaire-projet-wellcom-37254-.html --Alexis Germaneau (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Being listed as an exibitor at a trade show does not establish notability. Gtstricky 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For your information the Information Society Event (above) is not a trade show but a conference with review by a scientific committee.
Please find below a list of WellCom paper:
  1. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, S. Alam and J. Noll, ", Fifth International Conference on Soft Computing as Transdisciplinary Science and Technology, IEEE/ACM CSTST'08, October 26-30, 2008 - Cergy-Pontoise/Paris
  2. . S. Alam, J. Noll and D. Roman, "", Int. Conf. on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, I-CENTRIC 2008, October 26-31, 2008 - Sliema, Malta
  3. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, N. Elahi, S. Alam, J. Noll, "", Special Issue of International Journal of Web Based Communities (IJWBC), Inderscience Publishers, ISSN(online): 1741-8216 ISSN(print): 1477-8394.
  4. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, J. Noll, "", International Journal Communications of SIWN, UK, ISSN: 1757-4439.# J. Noll, S. Alam, and M. M. R. Chowdhury, "Integrating Mobile Devices into Semantic Services Environments" Fourth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, ICWMC 2008, July/August 2008, Athens, Greece
  5. . S. Alam, J. Noll, and M.M.R. Chowdhury, "Extending Service Oriented Architectures for Mobile Environments", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
  6. . N. Elahi, M.M.R. Chowdhury, and J. Noll, "Relation-based Access Control through Semantic Rules", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
  7. . N. Elahi, Mohammad M. R. Chowdhury, Josef Noll, "Semantic Access Control in Web Based Communities", In the proceedings of 3rd International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology ICCGI July/August, 2008 - Athens, Greece Published by IEEE CS press (IEEE Explore).
  8. . Gondi, Vamsi Krishna; Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim, "Ontology-Based Network Management in Seamless Roaming Architectures" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE7-11 April 2008 Page(s):60 - 65
  9. . Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim , "Towards Integrating Network Management Interfaces" In Network Operations and Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. 11th IEEE/IFIP 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):1 – 4
  10. . Nguyen-Vuong, Quoc-Thinh; Agoulmine, Nazim; Ghamri-Doudane, Yacine , "Novel Approach for Load Balancing in Heterogeneous Wireless Packet Networks" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):26 - 31
  11. . L. Trappeniers, M. Godon, L. Claeys, O. Martinot, E. Marilly, "Cross-Media Experiences: Ambient Community Interactions in the City", to be published in the Bell Labs Technical Journal, v13-2 – Summer 2008
Do you think that work published in IEEE is not notable ?

--Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

130 ghits does not establish notability. Gtstricky 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
IEEE... yea I know it and I disagree. Gtstricky 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You should argue and be factual (as said in the wiki etiquette), because your response is not constructive. Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - The project represents one of the new trends in Interactive TV, using the mobile phone for seamless authentication and personalisation of services. As such it extends the current developments of e.g. Full service broadband towards personalised service provisioning. I suggest that we take up the new trends in interactive and personalised TV and use WellCom as an example. Josef.Noll (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ] • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The Chicago Tribune ref appears to write about the entire festival, not so much about the rapper, but I have no way to check that. The Portland Mercury looked a bit too local and "bloggy" to me. While winning the 2004 competition was beyond any doubt. So I went for the one requirement I was sure of.    SIS  22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RockManQ 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Canadian debaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" Canadian debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 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) 01:12, 9 October 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 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

MiRoamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
MiMedia Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable internet radio portal and the company that runs it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 October 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 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariana Strozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nice resume, but no real evidence of notability. Biruitorul 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reason. At the pace you just nominated 2 dozen articles, did you even read through them all properly?JJJ999 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you say puff piece? -- Biruitorul 03:52, 4 October 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) 01:09, 9 October 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 12:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rikitiki & Merendeque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any legitimate news sources that mentions this duo. The only hits I get via Google are for MySpace, YouTube, and other video sites. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:48, 4 October 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) 00:58, 9 October 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 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list consisting of one entry is not a list at all. All the necessary information contained in this "list" are already in the main article. Hence, I nominate this for deletion. kurykh 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Libre services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:OR, WP:SYN. The term "libre services" is a neologism with no notable adoption; references to the term in the wild in English refer almost exclusively to the manifesto. The article pieces together various disparate references to things which might consistitute "libre services" in attempting to describe it. Insofar as the concept itself is notable, it is already dealt with in other articles within Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of free software. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 4 October 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) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1.3 Our philosophy
We believe that the intellectual property ownership mechanisms of patents, copyright and trade secrecy, as they exist today, have virtually no legitimacy at all within the digital domain.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Betsy Fagin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated after ProD. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. gnfnrf (talk) 22:50, 4 October 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) 00:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages of Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is well-intentioned, but it appears to be a randomly assembled hodgepodge list of blatantly obvious observations (they speak Turkish in Turkey, French in France, etc.) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 9 October 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 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Not sufficiently noteable. Geronimo20 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral, leaning towards the D-word. The main question is (ignoring the cruft about teaching and children's books) whether the subject is a notable pike angler... but I'm not sure that the single decent source (the Telegraph article) holds enough weight on its own (and Googling doesn't yield much else). This article has tested my adherence to policy and certainly stretched the boundaries of AGF so I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go, but I'm staying neutral for the mo. OBM | 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Neutral Living in the local area, I thought he was more notable for his books myself. I don't particularly care about the article but describing is writing as 'cruft' seems a bit POV. 137.205.17.89 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: 137.205.17.89 (talk • contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Just created, however, irrelevant creation. This title has never existed in WWE and is just a "term" to refer wrestlers who have won the WWE Intercontinental Championship and WWE European Championship (hence Euro-continental). Their is no such a thing as a "Eurocontinental Championship or Eurocontinental Champion" and is just a hypothetical term. No sense in merging as term is rarely ever used. SRX 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator of deletion.--SRX 00:23, 9 October 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 based on input from Andrew Lenahan. I would also like to use this space to acknowledge that I seriously misinterpreted Andrew's comments and I would like to apologise directly to Andrew for my error. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

La Cala Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Welcome to the Knowledge (XXG) Holiday Travel Guide, where you can choose a fine resort...oh, wait, Knowledge (XXG) is not a holiday travel guide! This slice of tourist spam needs to be tossed out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOT.--SRX 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith before openly questioning someone's research and editorial skills in front of the community. I never put articles up for deletion without first checking via Google. The search I did focused on the "La Cala Resort" name (I did not include "golf") and what came up was overwhelmingly either a bunch of press releases or coverage where the resort was mentioned only in passing. You can confirm this via and . Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me get this straight... you listed a resort with three golf courses, mentions of golf tournaments in the article, and even a picture of a golf green(!) in the article, yet you didn't think to include "golf" in your search?!? Ooookay then. Since clearly your actions in this matter are impeccable and any attempt to question your Sherlockian methods would be an indefensable breach of AGF, I'll avoid stating the obvious here. However, I can't not state that even your own searcg linked in this very comment includes substantial claims of notability from reliable sources in the very first couple of results: specifically, articles from The Scotsman indicating the resort as host to LPGA tour events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, if you cannot contribute to the conversation without being rude, please click that little red box in the upper right corner of your computer screen. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried following your technical support, but all it did was close my browser and I still don't understand why you're apparently ignoring the sources found in your own search. Ok, ok, all kidding aside, you can't behave so bizarrely and expect no-one to remark upon it. The world simply does not work that way. I still don't see why you've discounted the Scotsman articles as sources (again, they were right at the top... of your search, not mine). I'm also curious whether, after being told using "La Cala" +golf would bring far more sources--I get 300 or so--you apparently think all these should be discounted as well. The bottom line is neither notability nor verifiability are in question here, nor does the article have an advertising-like tone. What deletion rationale is left? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record There are two articles from the Scotsman, and -- neither focuses on the resort, and both only mention the location passing during the course of a single sentence. That doesn't pass the test, sorry. And neither article is about the LPGA. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
They do, however, verify that the resort is host to PGA events, which is one of the primary claims of notability in the article, the other two being the largest golf resort in Spain and also having a five-star hotel. Even if one attempts to claim that none of these are on its own notable enough for an article (with which I would disagree), it's still unfathomable how all three aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability isn't inherited and five-star hotels are not notable unto themselves. But let's get off the carousel with an easy solution. Andrew, if you are so eager to save the article, why don't you rewrite it with all of those goodies that you are citing (facts, references, etc.)? When it looks like a real encyclopedia article and not marketing collateral, I will withdraw the nomination. I think that is fair, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If hosting top-level professional golf tournaments, being the largest in a major country (Spain), and having internationally-recognised facilities doesn't make a golf resort notable, then please tell me what, in your opinion, would make it notable? What possible standard of notability are you holding it to? (Oh, and for what it's worth I don't see any marketing material in the article. Specifics, please.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 10 October 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 as lies. DS (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I can only find six Google hits for this word, and none of them gives me any strong feelings that this is a real word. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 9 October 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. Gazimoff 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Herrell (motivational speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and lack of Google hits for this person. Possibly a joke page of some sort by a student. And what exactly does "The Bare Midriff Look" have to do with motivational speakers anyway?? Doesn't meet WP:BIO by an inch, but not speedy delete. Walmwutter (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Besides the apparent COI, I see no notability here. Pinkadelica 14:27, 9 October 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 Holden Apollo. –Juliancolton 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Article appears to be a hoax, no Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Vectra was ever badged as an Apollo as far as I know. Alkwingle (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

↑