Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 15 - 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 merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode One (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable unreferenced episode. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Episode Two (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Three (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Four (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Five (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Six (The Office, Series One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep The articles are not as good as they should be, but having done a quick google search, each episode is notable enough for an article, IMO. I'm not at home or using my own computer at the moment, otherwise I would add references myself. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Information needs to be verifiable, and it is. The episodes themselves are sources. Kafziel 04:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Lack of notability however is a reason for deletion. – sgeureka 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • TV episodes are inherently notable. Kafziel 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
        • According to which guideline? Even WP:NOTINHERITED says the opposite. – sgeureka 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Um, that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. And I'm not going to argue about this with you; you know as well as I do that they're notable, or you wouldn't even be advocating their inclusion the main list. They can have their own articles for the same reason they get a separate, comprehensive listing on Knowledge (XXG): TV shows have at least some inherent level of notability. Kafziel 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. - Exactly. There are no policies and guidelines, and your blanket reasoning is included in an essay named Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please also refrain from putting words in my mouth; I do not know as well as do that they're notable (I don't live in the UK), and even if the episodes were individually notable (proof anyone?), I'd still argue to summarize their plot in a list until they satisfy for a WP:SPINOUT without violating WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka 10:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
              • You seem to have missed the point. The page you keep pointing out to everyone is an essay, but the page that says the articles can stay is called WP:V. It's a pretty well-known policy, and it's the only standard that has to be met. If you don't think they're notable at all, why would you support their inclusion on a list? List items have the same standards for notability. Kafziel 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                • To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it"; the request to add third-party sources to establish notability has been virtually ignored for 15 months (some would say because there are no such sources), so you can draw your own conclusions for the articles from the comment you just made. Anyway, Knowledge (XXG):Notability/RFC:compromise also shows consensus that lists do not necessarily operate under WP:N, a view I share for the time being. – sgeureka 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • And you're welcome to your opinion. You stated it below, and that's sufficient. When it becomes policy, let me know. My point - based on policy - is that reliable, third-party sources can be found. There's nothing that says they have to be cited in the article. They just have to exist somewhere. Again, that was my original point: They're out there, and you can go find them if you want, but nobody is required to cite them. Kafziel 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • The thing is, it's not my WP:BURDEN to find and add sources, it's yours. My main point is also that the articles consist entirely of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT; cast lists don't offer analysis). Since no-one seems to be willing to fulfill his burden, I suggested merging over deletion; what is your solution? – sgeureka 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                      • WP:BURDEN is about providing proof for questionable material, not for establishing notability. Quit trying to wikilawyer your way through this - I didn't start editing yesterday. The point is, it's nobody's burden to add sources. If there's something specific you are questioning, use a {{fact}} tag. These are TV shows, not biographies of living persons, so they don't need to use comprehensive citations. If someone wants to, that's great. There is plenty of coverage from the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph for them to use. But nobody has to add it. Not being sourced is not a reason for deletion, as long as it is verifiable. Kafziel 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • I have added {{fact}}s to specific instances that I doubt, per your suggestion, and have also added a {{plot}} tag (did you read my last comment?) to the pilot episode to stimulate article improvement. Time will tell if that's effective, or if they'll just continue to be ignored to support merging as the better option. – sgeureka 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!) (but tags were removed for the pilot in March), the tags of the others were removed in prod attempts and by IPs and no one noticed or did something about it). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. The lack of episode titles and the existance of the US version make it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. The pilot episode may have a bit more potential though for obvious reasons. – sgeureka 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A better example is the article on the . Notice how that has lots of references which establish notability. The UK original made plenty of impact - that's why it was remade. Your contention that these episodes are not notable is patently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • TJ Spyke didn't make lack of notability an issue but not showing notability. Since no-one so far is willing to add impact information (if it exists for all episodes), why can't the plot summaries as well be covered in the LoE? – sgeureka 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment If the first series is to be kept, can the episode titles be changed to the proper names? The first episode is called Downsize, this is the name given on IMDb. If it has name instead of Episode One I think we should use it. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Per Kafziel and Matthewedwards; also, each of these episodes in the UK first series were templates for the first season of the U.S., German, French, etc. versions of the show. Very likely that with a little work on the part of the people generally involved with wiki'ing The Office, the pages can all be sourced adequately. That's my .02 anyway. JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • merge. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 13:59, 19 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. Poor quality fork on non-redirectworthy title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

An article for this already exists. WadeSimMiser (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not only does another article already exist, but it looks like a fan site also. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - redundant with Jonas Brothers and the individual brothers' articles. --Philosopher  02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Already covered by Jonas Brothers, and Jonas already exists as a disambiguation page. No point in having an article titled with the apostrophe.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 16 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 List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode Three (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Again, another non notable episode unreferenced. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per all the other sister nominations - a confusing mix of group and single nominations. Lack of notability cannot be inferred from the lack of references and the nominator has made no case that this is not due simply to lack of effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete-Retrieves 20 g-hits, none notable http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22anu+law+revue%22&start=20&sa=N , having been to a show I severely doubt it possesses notability. It consists of 3-4 nights a year showing the equivalent of the local, amatuer misfits in drag, who get high off the fact that they are performing, and people are watching them. A place for (bad) amatuer comedians to go and die quietly, which has minimal audience (sold out doesn't mean alot in the context of a 3 night show in a tiny theatre), and doesn't even approach the bootlaces of notability for a play. It should go the same way as the Qld one here Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/University of Queensland Law Revue, and if anybody knows more about the other revues sub-linked to the page below, they should consider whether the articles also deserve an AfD JJJ999 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge, and it's inappropriate anyway because it isn't significant enough to merit a merge to what is in reality an unrelated page. The University doesn't run the Law Revue, a collection of students do. There is no value to a merge that forces absurdly tangential content to a real page.JJJ999 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable event for the largest university in that country. Dream Focus (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't think ANU is the largest university in Australia and I don't think it has nmanaged to be shown that this is a notable event for ANU - if you wish to maintain that assertion, please provide some sources to back it up. --Matilda 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, not only is it not the largest university (though it is one of the 8 largest/sandstone universities), but that fact has no bearing on notability of an event that a rag tag bunch of misfits who happen to go to ANU participate in.JJJ999 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Using the logic of dream focus, it would mean that an event at the largest country/corporation etc is notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:49, 17 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 List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode Two (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another "The Office" episode which isn't notable and is completely unreferenced. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 19 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 List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode One (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This episode isn't notable at all. Doesn't even have any sources. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Episode Four (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Five (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode Six (The Office, Series Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all These episodes are extremely notable as the show was a big hit and few episodes were made. To pick one of many examples here we have a scholarly paper on business ethics which, inter alia, discusses episode 2 of season 2. The lack of such references in the article is quite normal and, per our editing policy, is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge all to list. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb. My same rationale applies for all such nominations of The Office here on AfD.ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 19 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. clear web A7, no evidence or asserion of notability for the website. TravellingCari 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Black Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. This is an unremarkable fansite, which doesn't meet WP:WEB. The awards this site is supposed to have received are not from well known publication or organisation. Deadly∀ssassin 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - she might be notable enough, but the question is whether this website is. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:00, 16 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. There is a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:SNOW is applicable. (non-admin closure) Ruslik (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do you want to go today? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete article on forgettable ad campaign. The article itself says response was "lukewarm." __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - the fact that with today's perspective this may be considered by some 'forgettable' is not a reason for deletion. At the time it was a milestone both in Microsoft's development and in the history of computer promotion. Further, the page has the reliable and independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Contains multiple sources, notability is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- clearly notableJJJ999 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Notability is permanent and is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources for what was Microsoft's groundbreaking first international image campaign. Notability has nothing to do with fame or how many people remember something or if the response was lukewarm. There is no policy reason offered nor any policy justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While Knowledge (XXG):Notability addresses articles on companies and entertainment, it is silent regarding advertising campaigns. Several mentions in a trade publication may prompt a presumption of notability, but are not a guarantee. "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."
Although I still think the article is about a piece of media ephemera, expensive and "groundbreaking" though it may have been, prompt responses here show a building consensus to keep, which I won't argue with. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Give it some time for the ones who may not be watching right now to chime in. It may be worth a footnote in Microsoft's history, but I don't think every <metonymy> advertising jingle </metonymy> merits an article. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Far from being a 'footnote' it is a campaign that resonated in future years not only in computing but in many other spheres.. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if you go looking, you can find places where this buzz-phrase got recycled. And yet, it comes nowhere near the wide notability of "Where's the beef?" The question remains: where to draw the line between a notable item and a foot-notable one? I'm still willing to call this one a footnote. Carry on, __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 16 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. Foxy Loxy 08:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal Killers Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable DVD that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Hasn't even been released yet and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. was redirected back to artist article per the music guidelines but IPs continue reverting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC reminds you that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - same applies with WP:BAND. May have does not mean that it DOES have, so unless there actually is significant coverage in reliable sources, it is not notable no matter who put it out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I was using the quote from BAND as a secondary source. My argument is still that the major label release, coupled with an official release by a notable band satisfies WP:N. You have to admit you were mistaken in your assertion that the DVD had not been released. There are plenty of reliable sources if further research is done. It would be highly unusual that a notable band would put out a major label release that wouldn't pick up the requirements for notability. talk at me 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in that I presumed the date in the article itself was correct. And no, the DVD being an official release by a notable band does NOT satisfy WP:N. Sources do that, and press releases by the producer/band/etc promoting itself does not count. Where are the significant number of reviews, articles discussing the DVD, etc? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
By your logic, it's easier for a band to satisfy notability than for that band's album. That seems a bit backwards. I don't have a vested interest either way - I'm very satisfied that the Reuters source is quite reliable, and stand behind my original position. Starpulse? or MTV or MTV again. There is plenty of coverage of this DVD. talk at me 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course a band can satisfy notability easier than their individual works. And the Reuters article is a press release, which is RS but does not establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep evidently notable at least as far as the Wall-Street Journal is concerned. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:00, 18 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 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:47, 15 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. Disguised spamming account seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is an advertisement for a non-notable corporation, masquerading as information. The article was created on October 7 by User:70.171.215.119, who has been spamming links to the company in various places. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is an advertisement for a company, masquerading as information. The company is not notable and its nature is very nebulous, perhaps venture capital but there is really no way to tell. The article was created on October 7 by User:70.171.215.119 Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a relative concept, but that notwithstanding, the article that has been marked for deletion seems to describe the organization in a fairly matter-of-fact way. If it were an advertisement, it seems to me that they would have gone further to make the organization sound like some sort of gift from providence.

70.171.215.119 (talk) 21:45, 16 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Another editor's Prod notice was removed so I'm bringing this to Afd - Appears to be attempt to create a neologism - only appearance of this word found looks like misspelling in a public comment below a news item Hunting dog (talk) 22:00, 15 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 deleted by Akradecki. NAC. Cliff smith 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry:purge chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert-like, and how-to guide like. Hacked together, messy and unreferenced. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability. No third party reviews. Editor even states it is in production and has many bugs. No wide release. I'd even suggest a speedy delete. JavierMC 22:42, 15 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. Crystal ballin' seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete. The Article doesn't meet notability criteria for films given in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films)#Future films.2C incomplete films.2C and undistributed films since I can find no proof it has even begun principle photography. raven1977 (talk) 21:39, 15 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. No such location exists; most likely a typo of Gold Beach, Oregon seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold Beach, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any evidence that this is a real place: it's not listed in the GNIS, it's not on Google Maps, and with a Google search I can't find any websites (except an apparent Knowledge (XXG) mirror) that refer to it. The author may have been confused, thinking that Gold Beach, Oregon (which is almost in California) was actually in California; but if it be so, there's no reason to redirect, as it's a rather implausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 15 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. Bipped... seicer | talk | contribs 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about the sequel to Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) has been at AfD before and was closed as speedy delete, G3. A Google search for this film returns many results that this film is no longer a hoax and will probably be made, but I don't feel that the film meets the notability guidelines for films. The film is set to be released on March 9, 2010. After scrolling through the first couple pages of Google results, I can't find enough reliable sources to allow it to pass WP:NFF. Delete and salt with no prejudice to recreating in the future when there are enough reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thee Ungodly Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. Entire article is sourced from a fansite. —Hello, Control 20:38, 15 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, obvious hoax/vandalism, or at best something made up one day; also WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:MADEUP. Clearly a joke page. KCinDC (talk) 20:27, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Bassist for a number of bands, with their own notability concerns. I was reverted when I redirected this page to his band Fusebox Funk, which I already thought was charitable. Lack of significant coverage for himself in third party sources, mostly it's just mentions for his bands. I prefer deletion but would consider a redirect to one of his bands. ~Eliz81 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: COI as well as NN. Does not meet WP:music but beyond that seems to be a conflict if interest going on. Aside from small clean ups to the page I took a look at the user histories of the main editors: Teamxrsx, Otisrsx, IP 75.92.76.62, and IP 96.26.170.142. I see their only contributions to Knowledge (XXG) have been to promote Cary and his band. (As an aside you will see Teamxrsx has also had a rather large hand in Fusebox Funk along with Polyrhythmic. (Side note - The Fusebox Funk page was given a CSD on July 7, 2007 but Teamxrsx removed the tag. Another tag was placed on the page July 13, 2007 however Polyrhythmic simply blanked the page. Blanking was reverted but the they removed the CSD tag again. The page was again tagged for CSD on July 10 however seems to have been declined. I see another CSD with a date of August 1, 2007 but not sure where it fits in as it comes up in July) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional Comments: Just to break down the actual content of the page, COI aside. The methods used to determine notability are described at WP:GNG. It is consistent with guidelines at WP:music which breaks it down further. The basic guideline is, in order for an individual to have their own non-redirect Knowledge (XXG) article, a person must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. On the article in question there is a sub header named "Press coverage". The first four links are to articles in the Florida Times Union and none of them are about the subject nor do any of them even mention the subject, thusly not meeting "sources address the subject directly in detail" criteria. Those links should not even appear on the article page. What follows are links to an Electronic Press Kit (EPK) (that is not for the subject of the article), two links to Warwick on artists who use their products (one is a link to a list which contains Cary Jordan's name and the other is to a short "Artist Profile") and a link to Bass Player Magazine, which will not show you any article on Cary. (However there is a section in the magazine named "Introduce Yourself" in which bass players can write a bio about themselves and submit it. Cary is in that section) Everyone of those fails the criteria based on what is not allowed: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. The only other link listed under "Press coverage" is to a website that no longer exists. This whole section does nothing to prove any "Notability" as described in section one of WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The rest of the article is mainly a repeat of the same "official" links being repeated and placed under different sub-headers. The article does not meet any of the notability guidlines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cary The Label Guy has a number of third party coverage, including being featured in Bass Player magazines Oct 2008 issue. His band was not covered in that feature, only Cary. Cary is the bassist for several bands and has been on several albums. This article was deemed acceptable for inculsion several months ago. If there is a problem with the article, please let me know so i can fix it. Thank you. --Teamxrsx (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The COI issue is important and there is nothing anyone directly involved with the band or yourself is allowed to do per Knowledge (XXG) policies. Also, "featured in Bass Player magazine" is not fully accurate - "featured in an advertisement that was placed in Bass Player magazine" is. There is a huge difference. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a article about Cary in Bass Player Magazine. It's in the Introduce Yourself section of the magazine. There is a Ad as well, although, i'm not sure when that was pressed. What does COI mean? --Teamxrsx (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Bass Player Magazine, Criteria for being "featured" in the "Introduce Yourself" section: If you’d like to introduce yourself to the bass community, send a 300-word or shorter e-mail to with the subject “Introduce Yourself” and the following info: your name, hometown, number of years you’ve played bass, a description of your main gigs, your bass and rig, day job, why you started playing bass, why you play bass today, a “lightbulb moment” (a realization that changed your playing), how anyone anywhere can hear your music, and where people can talk to you on the Web or otherwise. And to answer your other question: COI = Conflict of Interest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not matter. The magazine has to pick who they want to feature, right? A feature is a feature. You are arguing semantics at this point. It IS significant third party coverage. Also, where is the conflict of interest? --Teamxrsx (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your definition is completely wrong. This is not significant. Significant implies multiple coverage in various 3rd party sources, secondly, this mention is trivial, and isn't even a real article. Secondly, did you bother to read the entire policy? Significant third-party sources which are independent from the subject. This means that in order for this mention to meet WP:N, it must be in a source which is not talking specifically about bass players. Unfortunately, the single source you provided meets no part of the policy.— Dædαlus /Improve 07:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding removing tags, i never removed any tags. The article was deemed within guidlines for inclusion, so the mods that were handling the article removed the tags. The Fusebox Funk article is not the article in question, so i'm not sure how that pertains to what IS in question.--Teamxrsx (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The point is, Teamxrsx, that you are a single purpose account who appears to be on Knowledge (XXG) for no other purpose than to promote Cary and his bands. ~Eliz81 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the band article. There are no reliable sources to establish notability outside the band. A self-submitted introduce yourself article isn't something that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made several edits to other articles, regarding music instruments. To say my Knowledge (XXG) account is only to promote Cary and his bands is simply not true. I can understand how this may seem to be the case, but again, i have made other edits with my account. The reason i have not made more, is simply because i don't feel comfortable with wikipedia yet and wanted to spend more time with it before i start editing a ton of articles. About the account "otisrsx"; i forgot which account i was using and accidentally signed in with this account. If you notice, i have only used that account once, then realized my mistake. Also, i am not associated with the band in any way. Say, for instance, the Bass Player Magazine article is not sufficient "thrid party coverage"(which is questionable), the other coverage Cary The Label Guy has received, was deemed sufficient back in July. I have been asking for help on how to make the article better, so please, instead of deleting the article, allow me to make it better, using your recommendations. Back to the Bass Player Magazine coverage. I don't know why a self submitted article should be discounted. There are many, many instances where press releases are used in the media(which are self submitted) that lead to articles and press coverage. This should be no different. The fact is, BP magazine had to pick who and what they decide to cover. They obviously felt that Cary was worthy of coverage, or they would not of covered him in their magazine. I don't know the exact data, but i'm sure they get thousands of submissions. --Teamxrsx (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Press coverage is completely third party. If Cary had paid for the endorsement to Bass Player Magazine it would be considered self promotion. Does the entry link to the BP magazine article? If so, why is that not considered substantial third party coverage. There are thousands of artists pages..what makes this one different? -p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.10.200 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply Again, a single article is not substantial or significant coverage, as called for by WP:N.— Dædαlus /Improve 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How much publicity does one need in order for it to be a 'significant' amount of third party coverage? -p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.10.200 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

More than a single article in a single magazine. Please read WP:N.— Dædαlus /Improve 21:06, 19 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 List of comic book superpowers#Heat vision. Of course, anyone is free to take further editorial actions with respect to this page, which includes recreating it with expanded sourcing, changing it into a disambiguation page, or merging the content that was there. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This is an expired prod that I declined to delete, because it's inevitable that there would be further discussion. Orginial nominator's rationale was "Heat vision does not meet wikipedia notability standards for a work of fiction. Essentially the topic does not seem to be covered in any secondary sources. (The single reference on the page is to a primary source.) The article could essentially be summarized in a single sentence in individual characters' articles in a section about their powers." This is a procedural listing, I am taking no position at this time. Xymmax So let it be done 20:01, 15 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Our Neighborhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability has been raised as a concern during its GAN. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is about a premier video album that received at least 2 mentions in reliable secondary sources, done by a notable band. I'm not a music buff, but this is only the second video album I've seen, and I would think that in and of itself would make it notable. The other video album is Rob Zombie:Past, Present, Future DVD; which more or less is a collection of videos for the accompanying CD. While I can understand the fail on the GA, I can't see why it should be deleted. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paranormal Skeptic, as well as the article clearly meeting having charted on a major sales chart. It may or may not qualify as a GA, but it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Blackngold29 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are sources, and it was number 1. I think thats enough to give it an article. Jakisbak (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, are you kidding me? Do you have something against the Slipknot project or something? Just because these articles may never become good articles does not mean they are not worthy of their own articles. This is a DECENT article, why would a stub article be worthy and not this? REZTER ø 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I am trying to make this issue clear, so at least it cannot be bought up against during GAN's. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It has been suggested during a GAN that this article may not be notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the first AfD just ended yesterday and I still feel the same way. As stated in that discussion: "This demo has recieved "independent coverage in reliable sources" from MTV, as well as coverage two books about the band which are atleast second party coverage. This article has better coverage and referencing, not to mention length and verifiability that the vast majority of demo articles on WP. Not to mention the band's notability in itself; if it were from a band that has had no sucess, then I wouldn't be so supporting, but Slipknot has debuted in the top five of the Billboards and many other countries' charts multiple times, we should do well to present their full history." Blackngold29 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I would also like to comment that I do not feel the nominator has allowed "a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again" as should be done per the WP:DP. Blackngold29 20:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Articles that don't have a clear consensus are quite often relisted twice, but the first nomination was only relisted once. Wouldn't it be reasonable to treat this as a second relisting? Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The band is notable, the album has several mentions in reliable secondary sources, ad infinitum, as per the same stuff I said for their other album deletion. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As I said before, in the last Afd for this article, I have created a page for this demo on wikia.com. They have a wiki dedicated to the band there. I am one of the few contributors trying to expand that wiki, but I made an article for this page there. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't believe that other Wikis should have any effect on Knowledge (XXG); their existance is irrelevent and I don't see this as a legitimate grounds for deletion as there is no deletion policy concerning other wikis. Blackngold29 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:01, 16 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 Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. MBisanz 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable failed political candidate, fails WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply: From WP:BIO: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Of the four independent sources presented in the article, two discuss the local Green party's chances generally, one is a letter to the editor taking umbrage at one of the other sources, and the final one discusses Hunter's platform should she be elected. None are about Hunter. Do you have any reliable, substantive sources about Hunter to proffer?  RGTraynor  20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One doesn't mention her at all, two mention her name only once in a heap of other political info, and none are genuine "substantive" sources. It is not enough to "reference" a person. Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."  RGTraynor  23:07, 15 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Essay, pure WP:OR and WP:SYN violations.  RGTraynor  19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the Nominator on all points. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SYN. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The creator of this article claims to be a lecturer at the University of Liverpool whose students "do not believe things now exist unless they see it on Knowledge (XXG)". Here's a tip for you, Webofculture (talk · contribs), that might help where your discussions on RGTraynor's talk page have not: Your students — presuming that you are who you claim to be — won't be any more enlightened by this article. It is waffle, from beginning to end, that contains not a scintilla of explanation of what global leadership is. That's why it was nominated for deletion. It isn't even a good start for an encyclopaedia article. It tells the reader nothing at all. If you want to get an encyclopaedia article covering your discipline written, you start with a few sentences that explain, to a general readership, what the discipline actually is (along with citations pointing to sources using which the article can be verified and expanded). If you really are a published author on this subject, and someone who makes a living teaching people about it, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in writing a paragraph that briefly explains what it is. Presumably you've already done that in your book, and presumably as an expert in your field that lectures on it you can briefly describe what that field is in coherent, waffle-free, English. That is what we want. That is what will make a stub. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The last two paragraphs of the "article" were copy-and-paste from a copyrighted Web page whose host and author have no connection to the University of Liverpool, so I've removed them, as I doubt that this article's creator can claim authorship of the text. What's left doesn't even qualify as a dicdef. Deor (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I've just noticed that the Web page's text emanates from someone who "teaches global business courses for several leading international educational institutions such as the University of Liverpool and Southern New Hampshire University" (must involve a lot of commuting), so I've stricken parts of my comment above. Unless Webofculture establishes rights to the text and releases it under the proper license, it still doesn't belong in the article, though. My "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Mm. I'm not heartened myself about how just about all the Google hits for "E. S. Wibbeke" or "Eileen S. Wibbeke" are either from book flogging sites, blogs, Wiki mirrors or run the exact same self-promotional text. Reed-Elsevier doesn't publish textbooks from outright charlatans, but we're not their advertising arm, either.  RGTraynor  23:50, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actress, only two very minor roles since 1980. Fails WP:BIO. Tevildo (talk) 18:44, 15 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.

And what happens if someone DOES edit this page further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.196.150 (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Gundam Wing mobile suits. MBisanz 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional weapon 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) 18:35, 15 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 List of minor Gundam Wing mobile suits. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OZ-13MSX1 Vayeate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon 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) 18:33, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This comic storyline not establish notability. It is just made up of plot and some junk at the bottom, which seems to be a mix of OR and trivia. TTN (talk) 18:29, 15 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 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mobius: 25 Years Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This comic storyline not establish notability. It is just made up of pure plot. TTN (talk) 18:28, 15 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 List of Future Century mobile units (which is the target of the redirect to which TheFarix linked). Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional group 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) 18:14, 15 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 List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

JDG-009X Devil Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon 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) 18:13, 15 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 List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GF13-017NJ Shining Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon 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) 18:12, 15 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 List of Future Century mobile units. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GF13-017NJII God Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon 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) 18:11, 15 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 List of G Gundam mobile suits. MBisanz 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional weapon 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) 18:09, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ICON A5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. May also fail WP:Crystal Ball Waterden (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a valid subject for a page since it has recently been receiving lots of press. I will update the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceywilly (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added more to the page. I do not believe this is a "crystal ball" page since the airplane is already being flight tested and taking orders.Spaceywilly (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well no, it's not a good article as such, but it's now certainly worthy of inclusion in the 'pedia. Let's say it's a jolly adequate article. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:07, 16 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 A9 by Orangemike , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Grandulon Mixtape Vol.1 (Rey El Grandulon album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control 17:32, 15 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 (nomination withdrawn). --Itub (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Fails notability. No third party sources cited. No third party sources found - although sources would be difficult to locate on the Internet as "ArtRage" appears to also be an art festival. GDallimore (Talk) 17:13, 15 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. I don't even know where to begin with this... seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

None important individual, other than his blood line. Also rather promotional article. Nothing of interest here. — Realist 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy request. I would prefer to see this discussion continue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! This is simply a work in progress. It is a fun trivial fact that Ronald Presley is related to Elvis. I would have to argue that notability can be assisted with who you know and who you are related to. Ronald’s connection to Elvis is nothing more than interesting trivia. This article is an attempt to document a local artist here in the South East who has played in Zenkil since 1998 and who now is using his talents to promote Death and Thrash Metal here in Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. This is not a promotional advertisement for Ronald, but I just wanted to put this information out there so that fans could eventually add more comments and to learn more about this artist. I did not realize that this site was created to censor articles that some folks deem as not notable enough. I thought this was a tool to get to learn about artists, musicians, and people who make a difference in the world no matter how famous that person is. This article was created for those fans that want to read more about this metal-headed Presley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnbham (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Myspace exists for that purpose. Currently the only thing that makes this figure noteworthy is his bloodline, it is not enough. OK, so he places music, so do I. I want a page of my own too. — Realist 22:16, 15 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. Also, France is not Nauru, and there is the possibility for expansion here. Black Kite 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

France–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet, another article created for bilater relations. Check Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Nauru relations Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article we learn that France has an embassy in Kosovo and Kosovo in France. That's all. A new section came today, if someone cleans POV expressions like "Learning a lesson from the impossibility of reaching a negotiated solution, France recognized Kosovo's independence" maybe the article establishes notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
We learn from the article that France was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo's independence, and we know from general knowledge that France has far more diplomatic clout than Nauru. This makes the comparison in the nomination frankly ridiculous. Any concerns about the precise wording of the article are matters for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
After the addition of the section probably yes. When I nominated it was only the first paragraph. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That information was in that paragraph. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The information about both the recognition and the embassies is duplicated. Already exists in International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Check the table. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 16 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 I think we're done here. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


The result was delete. Non-notable athlete... seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This page somehow survived AfD once and I'm not entirely sure how. This player fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. He's a 16 year old junior league player in Canada. He has not played at the highest level of hockey in Canada (which would be the NHL), he is a junior league rookie. He has not played in the highest amateur level of his sport - that would be the Canadian national team/international competition. Most of the articles we run across that we have to delete are junior league players who were drafted in the third or fourth round and have not played in the NHL. From what I gather in this article, this kid is a rookie in juniors. All of the rationale from the last AfD is faulty. Smashville 16:50, 15 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 Redirected to another title which is about to be deleted, so this is a pointless discussion. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Green day untitled eight studio albu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article about a future album, failing wp:crystal and wp:music, as there is little concrete information known about the album  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 16:50, 15 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. Using my magical, spirital powers, I predict... seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Green day untitled eighth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future album articles supported only by blogs ^without any hint of an official title^ are a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and should be deleted. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:47, 15 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 A7 (web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). Kafziel 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

5 Click to Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, WP:Notability (toys and games) . --The Firewall 16:36, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania Charts Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like the Philippines Hot 100 (see the AfD) and Hot100Brasil (see its AfD), here is a chart that asserts its own notability without really being notable or verifiable. There are also other problems. First, it's listed on a Lithuanian blog site. Second, it was created by User:Lithuania Charts Company, who then spammed his site onto various song pages (see the contribution history). Third, there's nothing on the homepage other than its own charts. There's nothing stating its methodology or history. Just listings. A search in Google shows either mirror pages of the Knowledge (XXG) page, various music/fanpages using the link, or other pages on blogas.lt. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Lithuanian Airplay Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LCC Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SKS2K6 (talk) 16:27, 15 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. It's snowing already, I think. Black Kite 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable sport apparently created last month at some user's dorm. Pakaran 15:57, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Article about web content with no independent reliable source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 15:30, 15 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 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

From the initial AFD: "Non-notable rapper, article is sorely lacking references. Artist has released mixtapes but no actual albums, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. If artist becomes notable some day in the future, article can easily be re-created." The AFD was closed as keep with the admin adding "I'd support a relisting for deletion if the article's deficiencies are unaddressed after a few months"—no substantial changes have been made to the article since then (January 2008) and his debut album still hasn't been released. —Hello, Control 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • In a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, a search for "Bobby Creekwater" turns up 74 articles. A few of them are borderline-trivial mentions, saying that he participated in Detroit's Hip Hop Summit Action Network in 2006. The vast majority of the non-trivial mentions relate to the album Eminem Presents: the Re-Up. We could redirect to that article, but one problem is that there is verified content that would not fit neatly there. But, more than that, I think this artist actually passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1, with not just the multiple mentions related to that album, but also the Allmusic source, and a review in Newsweek for his recording Anthem to the Streets. I've added several citations. Keep. Paul Erik 02:27, 16 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 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Only notability claim is that they record cheapo sound-alike dollar store versions of songs. They are clearly prolific, and a couple of their albums have Allmusic reviews (note, however, that their label doesn't have an article and seems to fail WP:CORP), but I'm finding no major sources besides Allmusic's terse reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I own several of the albums listed. Apparently, they are successful enough to keep putting out sound-alike albums like these, even after paying the writers their fees. Who knows, maybe someone who has an al bum or two would like to know what other albums they have made and when they look here, they can see all the albums they recorded. I say keep. Itsmyright (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:NMG. No issues with the move. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 20 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 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier 126 Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable heliport. Nothing to merge to. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:10, 15 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 nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Bullshit, maybe g3, In Speedy Deletion 1 day but was never deleted AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • G3 so tagged. Nonsense/vandalism. Author placed a {{hangon}} before the speedy was even up, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. The entire article: "Near Irkutsk in Russia the airplanes have their own Bermuda-triangle. Many airplanes goes down there. Including Aeroflot Flight 593." It's not Bermuda, it's not a triangle, nothing disappears, but other than that, it's an apt analogy. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 15 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Counter-Strike Condition Zero: Source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CRYSTAL. Appears to be a hoax. Valve has not announced such project. If they have had it would be announced on all gaming sites. SkyWalker (talk) 14:46, 15 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 22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

40 Greatest Men of Country Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
40 Greatest Women of Country Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20 Greatest Country Bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CMT's 100 Greatest Songs in Country Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of these are notable programs. The only sources are from CMT proper or press releases announcing the show's debut, followed by the actual lists presented by the show. Granted, CMT is a fine network, but these were just one-off lists, and who knows what criteria they used to determine who is the best? There's almost nothing that can be said about these shows besides that CMT aired them and that they gave this list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:55, 15 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 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

James McKenty and the Spades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Burning on Fumes (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let It Grow (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Canadian music band. I declined the speedy deletion due to the presence of this source which I added to the article, and which indicates the existence of some reviews. As a self-confessed idiot when it comes to music, I am uncertain if this passes WP:MUSIC. (Neutral nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete artist and albums, which I've added to discussion. That one source is all we have, and I'm finding nothing else at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a legitimate band from Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Please do not delete. User talk:Peterirwin
  • Delete: By only comparing the guidelines set at WP:Band to what is currently out there on the band, they do not meet the criteria for "notability". I do find minor mentions is article, minor in that it is either a listing of upcoming concerts or reprints/variations of a press release for the tour. I also can find reviews of some of the albums However all of this combined still does not fully meet the "Notability" guidelines. As a comment I will say the singer (not the band) won The Peterborough Folk Festivals Emerging Artist Award in 2002, which, according to the description of the award, gives the winner a "showcase spots on the festival weekend, a guaranteed spot on the festival main stage the following year, a Sonicbids account, and a trip to the Ontario Council of Folk Festivals' annual conference in October. The award is granted to an artist by the Artistic Director based on assessment of skill, dedication, and artistic merit." Not a major award as defined by the guidelines, but not fully non-notable either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention the albums: the two you listed, along with one you didn't, Restless Soul (album), do not even come close to meeting the criteria for notability (WP:NALBUMS) and should be either Merged into the main article (If the consensus is to keep) or Deleted (if the consensus it to delete) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A legitimate band from Peterborough; yes. A notable band from Peterborough;no. Delete the lot.  Esradekan Gibb  00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Musamies (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a band that toured with two of the finest Canadian artists of all time (Matthew Good and The Tragically Hip) should be deleted and not considered notable. The article will be improved to meet Knowledge (XXG) regulations but certainly should not be deleted. Clearly none of you have any idea of music notability, so please do not delete at this point.User talk:Peterirwin —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:19, 19 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. Spartaz 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of web based file managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This table comparing seemingly arbitrary traits of web-based file managers (it's hard to see why the first public release date would be relevant even to someone comparing these items) fails to assert notability. To the extent that such an assemblage of data would be appropriate anywhere, it is WP:NOT in an encyclopedia (maybe a software review site or somesuch). Bongomatic (talk) 14:46, 15 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. Good god. seicer | talk | contribs 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Tagged for cleanup since December 2007 with "It lacks a clear purpose". The list is hopefully incomplete, and if it were complete, it would be miles long. I mean, we've got everything from the Brontë sisters to SHeDAISY, for crying out loud. Also, the list is unsourced, indiscriminate (that's the big one), and furthermore, there's no List of brothers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:45, 15 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. With the proviso that I'm willing to userfy on request if anyone wants to attempt to salvage any of the content for use on Polish-German relations or any other article. Lankiveil 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts in western Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not even match the title, and what's worse, the title cannot be matched because of its ambiguity.

  • "Western Poland" - where is that supposed to be in a covered period of 1000 years? Poland's borders changed quite often, there is no constant western Poland. What 100 years ago was western Poland is now Central Poland, another 100 years ago it was East Germany. To adapt this part of the title to the article's content, one could change it to "Greater Poland".
  • "Ethnic conflicts" - the article does not only describe ethnic conflicts, but also, in an unbalanced way, historical demography and religious conflicts of Greater Poland. When it comes to ethnic conflicts, the article mainly consists of a section that describes the Germanisation attempts of Prussia in the Province of Posen. Other supposed conflicts with Germans are mentioned "by the way". Not mentioned are Polish-Jewish or any other conflicts.

Next, the article consists - as far as I see without exceptions - of content forks. The main sections are forks of Counterreformation, Germanisation and Prussian Settlement Commission, the other statements are covered in respective articles either.

I see no point in starting to "improve" the article, neither in keeping it at all. (This note is copied from Talk:Ethnic conflicts in western Poland - no discussion or even response since Sept 22; article is orphaned, not taken care of for quite a long time and apparently not watched/cared for by anyone Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, inherently POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research in it's current form. The extremely brief introduction states that this article concerns "Polish-German relations" (a broader, but more concrete, topic than the actual title), and then gives about one paragraph each to that topic in a variety of different eras. There are three line citations, which is always a good thing, but the problem here is an underlying assumption that there is a multi-generational link between each era on the topic of ethnicity and ethnic relations. THAT assumption is not cited at all. Do I believe that people who have lived in the area of modern day Germany have had encounters with people who lived in the area of modern day Poland? Of course. Do I believe that events between those peoples in 1565 have a direct relationship to events between such peoples in 1820? Maybe, maybe not. Causality is always a challenge for historians even with the most detailed and extensive research, which is not the case here.
I'm certain there are numerous published works tracing the historical development between peoples of those two general regions. An article on "german-polish relations" needs to assimilate those published works and present a topic based on them. This article has not, and there's no evidence it has even attempted to do so.
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if a concrete article can be written, with a clear topic and backed entirely by sources that relate to that topic. -Markeer 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Rationale and comments to statement above moved to talk page Skäpperöd (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-delete for now, but an article of that nature is possible to create, detailing the long millenia of ethnic struggles within Western Poland and Germanisation of local people, reverted in XX century.--Molobo (talk) 19:27, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MedExpress Urgent Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

debatable notability.. not clearly asserted Versageek 06:33, 10 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 20:45, 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 Delete. The essential information in this article is all ready present at the most commonly proposed target article. The additional information is unsourced. I'm happy to userfy for anyone interested in working on this in user space. Xymmax So let it be done 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Excessive plot detail and original research. No merge is necessary, as whatever material has merit is already at Doonesbury. Contested PROD.  Sandstein  12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be done 14:03, 15 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 A7 by Herbythyme , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability is not asserted. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:49, 15 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 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When Fish Ride Bicycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album with very little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed with the addition of a single reference. —Hello, Control 13:34, 15 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. Spartaz 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable bootleg EP with very little media coverage. Prod removed on the strength of one online review and a New Yorker blog post about the band that doesn't even mention the EP. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control 13:27, 15 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 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don Lee (college football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor college football coach, no substantive, independent articles about him, fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). See prior AfDs at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.

I am also nominating the following related articles, also for non-notable head coaches at Belhaven College. A fourth coach has gone on to coach Division I football, and is not being nominated at this time:

Scott Highsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Norman Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 Ravenswing  13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • keep additional sources, significant as second African American coach in history of conference, and "college" is the highest level of the amateur sport (comments above show a bias against the NAIA). One does not compete for four years in the NAIA and then "move up" to NCAA of any division.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The NCAA, which has established "Division I," "Division I-AA", "Division II" and "Division III," seems to disagree with you; NAIA competition is a cut below that. (If citing the widely acknowledged fact that NAIA is the lowest level of intercollegiate play for four-year schools constitutes "bias," I'm certainly guilty!) Other sources have indeed been added to the Lee article, but the vast majority being trivial mentions confirming that yes, he is indeed the Belhaven College coach (an undisputed fact for which no fewer than four cites were added in the last couple of hours). One article was added from a small town weekly that goes a little more indepth ... but is about Lee's wife.  Ravenswing  17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply if the NAIA was "below" the NCAA, then a player could play for four years at the NAIA level and then "move up" to NCAA but that is against all regulations in the two governing bodies. Both the NAIA and NCAA recognize that four years of college football play constitute the highest level of amateur sports competition in American football. Granted NCAA Div I FBS is more "popular" and more "wealthy" but "popular" does not necessarily mean "notable".--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Being below does not mean there is the ability to move up, being below means that you are not playing with the best of the best. The whole point of the "highest level of amateur competition" is that the players involved are the best in the world. Not the best at their particular level. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And you can't move up after playing four years of Division III either; what's your point? Different sports and organizations have different strictures (for instance, the "highest level" of amateur play in hockey isn't college hockey but major junior), but none of that, nor any measures of wealth or popularity, obscure the universally recognized fact that your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team. Are you seriously contending otherwise?  Ravenswing  18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply That is my point: that the highest level of amatuer American football is college football, be it NAIA, NCAA DIV III, NCAA DIV II, NCAA DIV I FCS, or NCAA DIV I FBS. I know, I know, you and others disagree...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And if you win explicit consensus for that view, then obviously that would change things.  Ravenswing  20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional. You can't just lump all college levels in and say college football is the highest level, college football is divided into levels, just like junior hockey is in hockey for example. They are all still junior hockey, but the skill levels are different. Highest level is in reguards to higest skill level, not "as far as you can go level" -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that not only we can consider all college to be the highest level , but that we must. Why? Well, 1) There is no specific "skill division" from the governing bodies in question: one doesn't "try out" at the NCAA headquarters and they say "you can't play here, try the NAIA or maybe Div III" 2) while any player may not get a scholarship at a Div I school---or make the team at a Div I school, there are many players who choose NAIA or DIV III for their reasons when they had the option to play at a "larger" school 3) The partitions between the NCAA divisions are based not on skill level of the players or teams, but by factors such as number of sports at the school, enrollment, and amount of scholarship money available. 4) The NAIA (at least in the past) did not have as stringent of academic policies as the NCAA and therefore there were many players that went to the NAIA by choice to gather more playing time and exposure for the NFL draft 5) Players from lower levels are drafted into the NFL after completion 6) In the past (and some would argue yet today) racism played a huge picture--the historically black colleges and universities were often held in "lower esteem" by the press simply because of race, 7) "the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional" is addressed at the essay Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject College football/Amateur, 8) "your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team" is a generalization, blanket point-of-view that has been proven incorrect through both junior varsity and varsity games at the collegiate level when teams play across divisions and even when NAIA teams play NCAA teams (both now and in the past) 9) even if #8 were true, the "quality" of the play is not the issue, but the "level" of the play. If we went exclusively on "quality" there would be several professional teams that would be cut AND that would violate WP:NPOV because the editors would be making judgements about the quality of play. Oh, my I'm getting tired of making points here...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No one compels you to do so, but you're still arguing against all consensus, on Knowledge (XXG) and otherwise, and fact. For instance, let's take the 2008 NFL Draft. Out of the 252 players drafted, only five came from Division I-AA (the first at #66), five from Division II (the highest at #140), and two from Division III (the highest at #203). That's the top sixty-five players, and 240 out of 252, from Division I schools. Not a single NAIA player was drafted. Let's move ten years back to the 1998 NFL Draft. Once again, not a single NAIA player was drafted, and it's a near-Division I clean sweep; only four players through the first four rounds were from I-AA or Division II schools. If there's anyone out there other than you who think that NAIA play is comparable to Division I play, they're not NFL general managers or scouts.  Ravenswing  18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll leave with this thought: There are NAIA players that make it to the NFL, and not all are drafted--some by free agency, some go through CFL or indoor leagues first. And certainly way more NFL drafts come from NCAA Div I. But if that's the rule, then we can remove the academy schools because none of their players enter the NFL draft... at least, not until they have fulfilled their service requirement. And some top college football palyers do not enter the NFL draft but instead pursue other interests. All I'm saying is that college is the top amateur level. Wanna hone it to just NCAA Div I FBS? Okay, how about the top conferences then--say the BCS shoe-ins... or maybe just the teams that win the top conferences... or maybe just the national champoinship team. We can go either way on this, and all I'm saying is make it simple--college football is the highest level of expression of the amatuer sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It really blows my mind that you can't see there is a quality difference, its not hard to understand that the best players get offered scholarships etc to the Div-1 schools therefore making the quality of play higher in Div-1 because most of the best players go that way. There is no point arguing with you about though because its clear you won't change your mind. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I never said that there wasn't a quality difference, I said that it doesn't matter if there is or is not a quality difference because that quality is a point-of-view, which Knowledge (XXG) works so hard to avoid. Also, WP:ATHLETE says nothing about "quality of play" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And that is where your argument is flawed, the level difference is provable, even the naming scheme itself supports it. The ultimate highest level one can achieve is to play Division-1 ball. The whole point behind that part of WP:ATHLETE says the highest level of amateur sport, in otherwards the point were you cannot find better competition. No one in their right mind would say that playing in the lowest level of college ball is reaching the pinnacle of amateur football. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My argument is not flawed, merely your understanding of it. And that's likely my fault for not explaining it well enough. But if I give too much detail, I get chastaised. Anyway, you are confusing "quality of play" with "level of play"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you equate failure to agree with you with failure to understand you? We understand you just fine. That being said, you're making a crucial error in claiming that Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV rule means we can't cite a subjective qualitative difference. It's true that we cannot make something up and declare it to be a fact. Want to bet I can't come up with fifty reliable sources saying, indeed, that Division I college football is the highest possible level of college play? (Hell, I bet I could come up with five hundred.)  Ravenswing  01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? Because even in your last paragraph, you fail to express an accurate response to the argument. If you understood the argument, you wouldn't be discussing anything about "quality of play" because that is not the argument I am making. Instead of responding to my argument (that all of college is the same "level"), you are responding with a different argument (that Div I is separate from NAIA because of quality of play). This is Ignoratio elenchi or "Irrelevant conclusion" which is "the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question." I concede that the quality of play at Div I is higher than at NAIA. What I do not concede is that they are different levels, primarily because the governing bodies do not concede that they are different levels and this is reinforced based on the eligibility requirements of 4 years of college football play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fail to express an "accurate" response to the argument? We are under no misimpression as to what your oft-repeated argument is. What's inaccurate with "Neither we, nor the outside world in general, agree with you," and what's so starkly incomprehensible with "And here's some evidence for that assertion"?  Ravenswing  04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It certainly does seem that Joseph's teams have been quite successful in NAIA ranks, but then again, someone must win games down there. It's still not the highest level of amateur play in football.  Ravenswing  21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Please read the article. San José State University is not NAIA but Division I NCAA, where he became noted as one of the best offensive minds in the country.
  • Reply: Please read the source. Joseph was not the head coach at San Jose State, but the offensive coordinator, and the quote - in an uncredited team preview on an unaffiliated website - is "He also turned San Jose State into one of the best offensive teams in the country during his two years as their offensive coordinator."  Ravenswing  20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say that's a pretty good source. The first 3.5 paragraphs are about Joseph and really only about him. That's significant coverage in my book. At that's just one of the sources. IMO, it meets WP:BIO and WP:N. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm not seeing how WP:BIO isn't met as this seems true for all of the above. Help? Hobit (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. The general notability criterion elaborates: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Of the independent, reliable links about Lee that are actually accessible, he is the subject of none of them. An article about the most recent football game quoting him is neither about him nor constitutes substantive, detailed coverage of him.  Ravenswing  14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming it's the VSN articles you consider to be not reliable? I'd say that given "The NAIA supports VSN; however, the views expressed through the Victory Sports Network, it's web sites or other media operated by VSN are not those of the NAIA or its national office." it is a close call. They claim editorial independence. Given the VSN articles, GNG is trivially met. Further, it is reasonable to expect that local (and fully independent) newspapers would have coverage about the local coach. Certainly our local coaches all have had write ups on them.... I'll stay with the keep. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mm, no, I don't have a problem with the VSN links; it's not that they're not reliable. It's that they cover Lee's team, not Lee himself. GNG can't be "trivially met"; either the coverage "address the subject directly in detail" or GNG is not met.  Ravenswing  20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) \
  • I'd say it's about how he deals with coaching and having a wife with said medical problems. I mean the only reason the article is there is because _he_ does what he does. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Highsmith and Lee. These coaches are simply not notable enough even in their own level of sports, and RGT outlines some serious problems with the sources, as he has done before, on the articles (Haslam et al.) he referenced. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Paul McDonald. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind and Drmies. Unfortunately, the CFB notability standards are so far below the consensus at WP:BIO that way too many people pass. I appreciate Paulmcdonald's passion to retain the articles, but he should put his energy into ensuring that those few coaches who are genuinely notable have their articles kept. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Surely you do not have difficulty telling the difference between "This page documents an English Knowledge (XXG) notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" and "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." That aside, the horde of new sources are just more and more trivial mentions, the same that accumulate like barnacles on any sports team, and just seem like an attempt to bury the issue under a giant mass. Just like three times zero still equals zero, twenty-three times zero isn't any larger. There is still not one single independent source that is a biographical article about Lee ... not about his wife, not about a player he's coached, not about his team, not about the prospects for the (then current) season, not a mere reiteration of won-loss statistics or how well Belhaven did in last weekend's game.  Ravenswing  04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I just asked a question, I wasn't looking for ridicule. The way I see it, WP:ATHLETE is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a large group of people who are not close to the topic and have not discussed it in length, where WP:CFBN is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a small group of people who are close to the topic and have discussed it in length. As to the "horde" of new "barnacle" articles, why in the world would not such a large assortment of articles from so many different sources not be an indicator of notability? Gobs upon gobs of other articles on Knowledge (XXG) have far less sources yet have remained after AfD discussions. And this isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, this is "other stuff exists and has remained through AfD" which is another way of asking, are you sure that the real reason you want this deleted is not just simply because you don't like it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:24, 20 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Korn 9th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another "future album" article. No name, no tracklist, no release date, no source. Fails WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC. We need a speedy category for these. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 15 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. Spartaz 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

On The Inside Looking Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable download only album. Needs substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal Prelude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment I see nothing to suggest that the sources shown exercise any degree of editorial selection in respect of the reviews that they publish. As such, they are not reliable. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Masem, I don't know what more else is needed. If they are reliable sources the article has right to be here. Their website says that Valve has contacted them.They even said that some newspaper and Channel 4 were talking about this mod. Modders deserve attention. They are doing a lot of hard work and their deserves more encouragement. Look at Valve for example they even started bringing out mods on to their distribution system. It says a lot. Seriously what is wrong is adding mod in Knowledge (XXG)?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The typical video game article will have the following four sections: plot, gameplay, development, and reception. I have not played Prelude, but from what I've read and seen, there's no change in the Portal mechanics, so there is essentially nothing there. I'm not sure how much plot can be gotten into; given that it is unofficial, one has to be careful to presume that it is prelude to Portal, so there can't really be much there. Development as best I can tell can only be sourced to the developers themselves and thus this will not be a significant section. And from the reception standpoint, we're not going to have anything like sales (# of downloads maybe), but the reception itself as best I can tell is simply the levels are harder than Portal. There are notable sources for an article, yes, but I think the overall quality of such an article, pending new sources that may arise, is not good enough to have as its own article; two sentences can cover everything this article states presently in the main Portal video game article. This is the typical case with any user-generation modification of any game in terms of WP - its release may gain a brief bit of notability, but lasting notability is not guarantied (see WP:NTEMP). Not that there isn't potential for this to be more significant in the future, but given the typical pattern of user-mods, it likely won't; if it does, great, we can expand it. --MASEM 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note, WP:NTEMP contradicts what you say: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence". According to that, there's no such thing as temporary notability or unguaranteed lasting notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability asks for siginficant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the Gamespy and Planet Halflife sources provide it. Additional interest displayed by the Kotaku piece, Softpedia, Rock Paper Shotgun and Wired demonstrate that interest is being shown and further sources are likely. The developer has been interviewed twice at least, which allows for some development info. The only thing which magazines have consistently covered which isn't off-the-shelf is mods, mainly for FPS games, and they've done so for years. The gaming world has gone bananas for Portal and here's a mod which takes as long to complete, has 400 lines of dialogue and may involve cake. Chances of it not getting covered in mags? Realistically, nil. IMO the sources present are enough anyway, but when there's that much potential for more deletion seems like throwing the baby out with the other baby. Someoneanother 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, there is interest, but given how fast the gaming community moves and that the game has been out for a week and the coverage seems to have died down already, what is out there in coverage is most likely the bulk of what we will see. This doesn't prevent us from talking about it on the Portal page - there's no significant size issues there yet, and there's no reason that we can't make a new section about it, but as a standalone article, it is likely going to be very stubby. It's not an issue of notability, simply article quality. --MASEM 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • What an excuse. So if it dies down. It should not be there?. What sort of excuse is that?. If that is the case half of the article in wikipedia has died down and must be deleted and/or should be merged?. Masem you are one who deleted Portal Prelude references in Portal article saying it was not relevant and now you want this article to be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Before the map pack was released, someone added a very long (relative to the rest of the article) section on PP, which basically sourced the mod's website. I think at that time there was a Kotaku article mentioning this, I can't remember - but as a unreleased mod it no way needed about the 6-8 sentences it was getting. Now, the mod did get released, and more reliable sources (wired, RPS, at the very least, and the gamespy review) expressed the interest to make it completely reasonable to add the mod to the page - in one or two sentence - it is completely worthwhile to talk about because it's not just a random Joe User map pack. Again, my argument is not because there isn't notability for this, but that you are going to have a difficult time making this article any better from the lack of any other reliable sources that I have seen, at the same time having coverage in the main Portal article will make both topics better. --MASEM 12:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge. Notability is not really an issue here, Skywalker and Someone another have both provided sources displaying notability. The problem is more what really can be said about the subject manner, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be that much as this is at the end of the day a glorified map pack. Rather than deletion, a redirect to Portal (video game)#Critical reception seems to me to be the most reasonable course of action, along with the addition to that article of the sources produced here to produce a quick and concise summary of the subject. -- Sabre (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the point of redirect?. It was added on Knowledge (XXG) when Masem removed it. Here is an excerpt

So, Ok... we actually got into the Knowledge (XXG), at least until someone named Masem decided that it was not relevant to the article. After time goes by the traces would disappear. I have seen this happening in lot of Knowledge (XXG) articles. Let it be separate. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:10, 18 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. Foxy Loxy 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Weapon X (Exiles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Let's get a couple of things out of the way to start with. This is NOT an article about Wolverine = Weapon X. This is NOT an article about Weapon X, the programme that created Wolverine (Just so people don't get confused).

Ok - this is an article about the weapon X team who appeared in the first volume of the marvel Exiles series. They have never had their own series, they have never appeared anywhere else. They only exist and exist as a counterpoint to the Exiles *within* that series. The existence of this team is covered in the (awful inuniverse) Exiles series and only needs to be described in real world commentary in terms of their contrast to that team. All of the sources are primary and will remain so because this little known team has never been the subject of the depth of reliable real world independent sources that we require to construct an article don't exist. And if they don't exist (and they don't), neither should this article. All required detail is already covered in the Exiles article. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

there isn't any - They are mentioned in a couple of interviews when they were created on newsarama but that's about it - they are not notable outside the context of being supporting characters for the exiles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect Per above. JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:06, 18 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 (G10 - attack page/negative unsourced BLP). Xymmax So let it be done 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

A Biography of a living person which is sourced entirely to a Facebook profile. I can't find any reliable sources that mention this ball boy - a position which seems unlikely to provide the kind of coverage from which a verifiable article could be written. Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 15 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. Foxy Loxy 08:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article I don't think has enough to stand on it's own. Propose deletion or merge into Cryptography or similar article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This proposal has come to my attention via a message on my talk page. I created the article and so can be seen to have bias, but I expect that the reasons for which I created are sufficient to preclude its deletion in any case. The concept of cleartext is important in cryptography and communication security. Perhaps especially for those new to the field who have not yet learned to think in the necessary cautious (which is not quite paranoid -- despite opinions to the contrary by outside observers). The concept was not adequately covered in any crypto corner article when I created the article, and my review of recent articles I have reviewed has shown no improvement in this respect.

    Objectively, the article has several links to others, is also linked to by other articles, and is referenced to an external source. It is not, however, merely a Wikitictionary candidate unsuitable to WP, as the article has context useful to readers (especially those new to the field), which content would be unsuitable to a dictionary.

    Hence I suggest that it is sufficiently encyclopedic to be retained. It is certainly a small corner of an uncommon if important topic, but deletion on those grounds would encompass a very large number of article.s As WP is a virtual encyclopedia, the cost of retaiing the article seems minimal in comparison. Socially, it has not occasioned edit wars nor community disturbance so it hasn't earned deletion points on those grounds either.

    I suggest retention. ww (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    • The problem is that the article is propounding an idea that doesn't seem to exist outside of Knowledge (XXG): that plaintext and cleartext are somehow two different things. I did a Google Books search to see what I could find. I looked at the first 80 books that came up. They ranged from HIPAA security handbooks through treatises on the legal aspects of cryptanalysis to encyclopaedias of computing. Only one even implied that there was a difference between plaintext and cleartext: ISBN 0471381896, a book on programming in Visual BASIC. All of the others stated that plaintext and cleartext were the same thing. All of the encyclopaedias and dictionaries had entries along the line of "cleartext: see plaintext" (examples: ISBN 0792384253 page 216, ISBN 0750696001 page 589, ISBN 0618714898 page 57, ISBN 0309054753 page 355, and ISBN 0442006497 page 366).

      So the question is: How is this content verifiable and not original research? What source do you have for the notion that there's some distinction between cleartext and plaintext, as you have written? Your sole cited source is the use of "cleartext" in ISO/IEC 7498-2. But that standard is well known for alternative terminology, such as its use of "encipher" and "decipher" instead of "encrypt" and "decrypt". A thing defined in ISO/IEC 7498-2 by an alternative name is not different to the thing named by the common name. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. It seems different enough from plaintext to merit a separate article. By my ueaidrntsndg, caeerlxtt is txet taht has been eyrcntpetd, but taiirllvy so, so mhuc so taht the eyernctpr mghit not hvea beoerhtd. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I accessed this article to help me out in the middle of a translation. If that is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG), then what is? I am well aware that experts in any area can argue things out until the cows come home, or at least until they reach consensus as to what content is necessary (which is what talk pages are for). But in the meantime, non-experts need a handy encyclopedic reference. The article is referenced, linked and clearly expressed, or to put it in other words, a good Knowledge (XXG) article.--Technopat (talk) 16:35, 15 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. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Biography of a living person that appears to fail WP:BIO. I don't see any significant coverage in news or books; just a few passing mentions in art and drug-related articles. Article hasn't expanded past a stub in a year and a half, and was tagged for no notability since April. There just don't seem to be any reliable sources to expand this page or establish any notability at all. In fact, a good amount of it ("innovator", "health and safety trained") reads more like a resume than a biography. Kafziel 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing to assert notability. Bob has one of those names that is a bit of a minefield to google, but narrowing it down reveals only passing mentions outside of wiki-esque sites. The claim that he is "prominent" in his field isn't supported by the article on Glassblowing or the List of glass artists, never mind anything outside of WP. In fact, a brief look at some of those mentioned on that list demonstrates the level of notability that this article fails to convince me of. OBM | 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Snodgrass was a well-known member of the Grateful Dead's entourage, and an influential (if low profile) character. That he is omitted from the cited list simply shows the dichotomy between fine art and popular art; note the distinction Knowledge (XXG) draws between "violinists" and "fiddlers," even though the instrument is the same. The article will require finding print sources to reach full length, I expect, but there is certainly enough information online to indicate notability. For example, , "It all started with glassblowing legend Bob Snodgrass. He was the visionary artist who first experimented with clear borosilicate (or Pyrex) by adding powdered metals, thereby creating "color-changing glass.". Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment; I understand the disctinction you're trying to make regarding fine and popular art, but I don't think that has any bearing on the subject's notability (or on the inclusion criteria of that list - you'll see that a few of those artists certainly would disagree with the label of "fine art".) If his notability can be proven with reliable, third-party, published sources then please add them to the article, because at the moment there are none of any kind supporting the article's claims of the subject being a "prominent" glassblower or your assertion that he is an "influential (if low profile)" friend of the Grateful Dead (which is going have a hard time against WP:N, anyway). OBM | 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply. It is not appropriate, bordering on the uncivil, to cast behavioral aspersions at those who disagree with you or point out the errors in you arguments. You claimed that google searches showed no significant coverage, but I found an article in about 15 seconds and cited it. You claimed that his notability was not supported by the list of glass artists, but in terms of the criteria for that list, he would not be included regardless of his notability. Given your failure to make any genuinely relevant points, you would be better advised to strike your poorly informed comments than to attempt to chastise those who provide more accurate, relevant information. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Steady on there. I didn't claim that his notability wasn't asserted by that list, I claimed that it wasn't asserted as there is a complete and utter lack of sources in the article, nevermind sources that may meet WP:RS. My nod to that list was questioning the assertion that he is prominent in that field. If that isn't the field that he's prominent in, then feel free to clarify this on the article (with sources). And please, please be aware that WP:AFD is a place for discussion, not a battleground; I wasn't casting "behavioral aspersions" on you, merely responding to some of the points you raised in an effort to forward the discussion. Please can you try and keep a level head, and focus on how the subject meets WP:N and WP:V so that the article can be improved if possible? :-D OBM | 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Minos, it was reasonable for OBM to point out that your feelings about fine art vs. pop art on Knowledge (XXG) are not relevant to this AfD discussion. He did it in a perfectly civil way. Your reply, on the other hand, wasn't so civil. He never called you "poorly informed", and he didn't say you "failed to make any genuinely relevant points". Let's not turn this into something personal. If sources can be added to the article to establish notability, I'm sure we'd all be happy to close this with a unanimous keep. Kafziel 13:18, 16 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 (A1 - article too short to identify context) by KieferSkunk. Xymmax So let it be done 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Dubious definition for a neologism. VG ☎ 11:16, 15 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 and redirect to subject-oriented programming (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Hyper/J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Gets a few mentions here and there, but given that this software is discontinued, it's unlikely that substantial coverage will emerge. VG ☎ 11:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good compromise solution would be to merge it with Subject-oriented programming. If you don't mind, I'll do that and turn "Hyper/J" into a redirect page. --Antonielly (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable, especially since subject-oriented programming doesn't have any concrete details. VG ☎ 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Can we considered the discussion formally closed? :) If you say so, I'll remove the "request for deletion" tag and turn Hyper/J into a redirect to Subject-oriented programming. --Antonielly (talk) 13:37, 15 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. reclosing after enquiry. I missed that awards had been added and subsequent votes were to keep. Spartaz 09:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. VG ☎ 11:06, 15 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 vandalism, and I doubt that this had a snowball's chance anyways. The page was a how-to page describing a morally and legally dubious scheme to make more money housing foster children by suggesting ways to spend less on their care. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

no evidence word is used or notable. possible hoax. prod removed with no reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 15 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. Tan | 39 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Plano East Marching Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about music contest that does not establish notability through reliable sources, instead describes the rules/judging process in future tense as they are probably written (something that matches the rules that would accompany registration forms), making it promotional and possible copyright violation. Boffob (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Author of article has admitted (in good faith) conflict of interest and that the article was written to promote the contest on my user page. The latter would make it candidate for speedy deletion.--Boffob (talk) 13:59, 18 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. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable; suspect COI; kinda reads like an advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:36, 15 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. Spartaz 07:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This ad-like page cites three references:

  • what appears to be the Texas tax certificate for the subject company (but is locked)
  • an award site that doesn't mention the subject
  • an award for a website that appears to have been produced by the subject company (but it's the content, not the production, that appears to have won the award, as the subject company is not the recipient of the award).

It is not notable. Bongomatic (talk) 09:30, 15 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. Spartaz 07:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing is Believing (global initiative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising. Is this charity notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 15 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 all. Can be redirect to episode list at editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was redirected last year but an editor chose to repeatedly restore the article with the justification "These episodes don't need to be reverted, they follow the wikipedia guidelines". He also removed cleanup templates with the words "This was in the episode, according to the wikipedia rules and guidelines they don't count as original research". I, however, see major issues with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:OR. I could find no useful sources in the first Google pages, and nothing on Google Books and Google Scholar. I fear discussion or redirection outside of AfD will not result in objective results.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (didn't check Google for each one though, as I expect similar non-results):

Shrink Rap (Dave the Barbarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pet Threat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Girlfriend (Dave the Barbarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beef! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rite of Pillage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
King for a Day or Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slay What? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Episodes with Annie-Award noms are not included for at least having a claim of notability.) – sgeureka 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Don't assume that a talk p. discussion would have no useful result. For at least some of this, the amount of information episode list seems to be sufficient, and I at least would have said it on a talk page if asked. DGG (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Since AKR619 is the only editor to edit these articles, and since I already know that his views are not supported by policies and guidelines (see his comment above) and that he is willing to push his views through edit-warring (see the article histories), no, discussion would not have lead to any useful results. Especially since no sources seem to exist. No potential => no justification for article => AfD. – sgeureka 12:14, 15 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 House of Payne. Merge or retarget redirect at editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ella Payne (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) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I'll add additional references and perhaps expand the article, at the time of creating the article I was inexperienced with Knowledge (XXG) therefore reluctant to create an article that followed the guidelines to the letter. The article provides no information regarding the plot but rather the character's relationships with other members of the cast. The external links provide sources for many of these claims however I will add citations to be more specific. UniversalBread (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge like the other characters into Tyler Perry's House of Payne. The section on the characters there needs to be expanded, but I do not think the show is of the same cultural importance as some of the others we've been considering, and may not justify separate articles for even the principal characters. DGG (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If we where to create an additional section for characters on the main article it would certainly be too lengthy compared to other sections. If the deletion of the article is indeed mandatory an additional article for information regarding the fictional characters should be created.
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines haven't exactly made it clear as to what makes a telivision character "significant" enough to warrant its own article, and really there seems to be a double standard. Characters who appear very rarely such as Meg have their own article (as well as any other character on that show), which--ironically--offer very little information rather than plot summary.
I'm not excusing crappy articles with the existence of multiple other mediocre articles, however this makes it difficult as to distinguish what is required for a character to have their own article. Ella Payne is a key character on the show; if I where to significantly improve the article I doubt a merge would be necessary. UniversalBread (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
the sources seem suitable for it to be a section of a combination article. They meet WP:V for the purpose--primary sources for uncontroverted material like this are accepted. DGG (talk) 11:11, 15 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 Papa Lazarou. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keith Drop (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) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 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. by nominator. After a search the nominator was able to find proper sources for notability so I'll take it as a withdrawal, being a stub isn't much of a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ack! I did a Google search before I posted this AfD, but I must've mistyped because I just did the search again and found enough in the results to indicate that this person is at least more notable than I thought. Still not much of an article, but... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:32, 15 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. Spartaz 07:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable DJ. External links / refs quoted do nothing to confer any notability on the individual. Fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:55, 15 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. Spartaz 07:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article about a photographer does not provide any evidence for notability, such as the winning of notable awards or any independent commentary. Grahame (talk) 07:34, 15 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 A7 by Xymmax (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I suspect this is a hoax as this article appears to be (in name anyway) a recreation of an earlier article that was speedily deleted on October 11 for lack of notability. Even if this isn't a hoax (I'm assuming here), I think this article fails WP:MUSIC as the article clearly states that their album is due out in 2009. I get no Google hits for this band or Donahue Records which is the record company they are supposedly signed to. Pinkadelica 07:33, 15 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. Foxy Loxy 08:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of Hermes (Ars Magica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional organization. Notability isn't inherited from Ars Magica, and this article is mostly plot summary. I didn't seek a merge as I don't think there is material worth merging to increase the understanding of the Ars Magica article beyond what is already present there. The prod I placed was removed, so this is why the AfD is here. --Craw-daddy | T | 06:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The main article does not cover this subject, & some coverage is necessary for proper encyclopaedic coverage of Ars Magica. Merging is an option, but the main article is already large. Tachyonuk (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there really more information necessary than what is already at Ars Magica#The Order of Hermes? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
yep - at the bare minimum there would need to be a list of the Houses Tachyonuk (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per Tachyonuk. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 17 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 G7 – page blanked by main contributor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pz10.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web site. No third-party sources to back up claims of members or traffic. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Original author has a conflict of interest as he is the owner of the website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The lack of third-party reliable sources does it for me. There are some assertions that may make the article notable, but after my own search, there are just no reliable sources to verify these claims. Even with these claims, it is hard to tell whether they are truly notable (being the first Indian-based website to break the top 4500 websites?, the No. 35 Indian web portal?, etc) The lack of sources, combined with it reading like an advert, and it failing WP:WEB and WP:CORP, means I endorse the deletion request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Even if we accept the really weak claims in the article as 100% truth, they're not notable in the slightest, though there is a certain charm in claiming to host "stomach-churning jokes". Note that the article is also a pretty blatant advertisement that even slips into first-person at the end: "...we work continuously to keep up and bring in more creativity". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (G11) — Eligible for a Spammy award. MuZemike (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now eligible for speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 with this edit. My edits to the article were not substantial, but would prefer that another admin close this AfD and delete the article since I was in contact with the original author regarding issues with the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:54, 15 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. Spartaz 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT. Claims of being "most popular female character to come out of Disney Afternoon" is completely unsupported and no sources found to back it up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:07, 15 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 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Speedy tag removed by the original contributor, and I don't feel like warring with him/her. VG ☎ 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: The article reads as a press release and seems pretty blatant adverting. The article does not present a valid reason for notability, either as a company (production company based in London), as an indy record label (both of their debut albums have been best iTunes sellers) or for the two album they seem to have put out. (Does Knowledge (XXG) even allow iTunes or other online sales for albums to be thought of as "notable"?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Author: This is a specialist company whose products are used for entertainment purposes at costume parties. People wish to know who they are and what they do because unlike a pop artists, there is no public face. I considered this wiki entry as a public service for the many people who are interested in this form of entertainment. I did not remove the deletion tag on purpose - it just disappeared, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.164.221 (talk) 22:16, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Local kids theater company in Canada. A google search provides links to a ton of organizations called Youtheatre, and none of them appear to be this particular one. Not notable. Also WP:COI; prod removed without comment or fix. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 03:57, 15 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. A good discussion that, in the end, had no !votes to keep. Xymmax So let it be done 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A mall is a mall is a mall... Would anyone care to dig through these sources to establish some special notability? Schmidt, 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I frequent these malls, and I can imagine that Pentagon Row, the other mall that I flagged at the same time as this one, might have garnered an award, as one of the newer livable smart-growth outdoor malls with consolidated residential space; I'll take a look. But this one? It's a nondescript building with a homely interior with a CostCo, a Marshall's, a Linens and Things, a Best Buy, a Borders, a Chevy's, and (surprise!) a Starbucks. No way there's anything remarkable about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So you're saying you flagged Pentagon Row for deletion and will now investigate whether it's notable?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Part of the dynamic of these discussions is that someone might make a point that someone else hadn't already considered. It hadn't occurred to me before to think of it in terms of having won an award. Originally I'd been thinking in terms of, "Gee, it has a Noodle & Company, a Baja Fresh, a Hallmark store, and a Harris Teeter. How does this distinguish it from 50,000 other shopping malls in this country alone?" In fact, the realization that there might be something I don't know about how shopping malls are judged de facto for notability purposes (not de jure—there is no operative notability policy specifically for shopping malls on Knowledge (XXG) at the moment), as well as leaving open the possibility that someone might make some points in favor of keeping the article, is why I didn't just request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
          • But the article is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", so WP:CSD#A7 wouldn't apply anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
            • A shopping mall isn't an organzation (a company or a segment thereof)?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
              • No, it's pretty clearly a building or structure.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
                • But despite that Delete this place doesn't meet the notability standard there either. The Pentagon Centre in Chatham,--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) UK might though...
                  • It isn't clear to me. Anyway, note that while the (proposed!) buildings article doesn't mention malls, it mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • "in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria" That's only true for chains and we're talking about shopping malls, not chains of shopping malls. In cases not related to chains it goes back to the same criteria as for other structures.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
                      • Funny, OK, I missed "chain". But then, a chain of hotels or restaurants isn't a building, structure, or landmark, so it's awfully strange that they bothered mentioning them at all. But it doesn't matter: if offered it as the consequence an *even if* the buildings criteria apply. I still don't think of a shopping mall as primarily a building. In fact, in the case of Skyline Mall (discussed in another AfD) it isn't *even* a building, and the same goes for the Crystal City Underground—obviously, since each is just part of a building. Finally, I note again that regardless of whether Knowledge (XXG) has yet to complete a policy on malls, what seems obvious to me is that if you can go by the local press, then every single shopping mall on the planet is notable. The whole point of notability criteria is to distinguish those things that are truly worth taking note of from the rest. Any definition of notability for some particular class of things that results in all members of the class being notable is a worthless definition.—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 14 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 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment relisted on the grounds that while there's back and forth, there doesn't appear to be consensus. I think a few extra days could bring consensus, so not closing as a no-con. TravellingCari 03:51, 15 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. Spartaz 07:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non notable martial artist, page seems to be a promotion of the martial artist. Abstrakt (talk) 23:56, 10 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 03:49, 15 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. Spartaz 07:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

A couple of Google hits use this phrase in connection with the concept of "an eye for an eye" but if this were the standard name of an established legal principle I'd expect to see it used in references and analyses all over the place, so I suspect it isn't an established term. Besides that, the article is unreferenced; one of the external links refers only to punitive damages, an entirely different thing; and the other external link has the words "punitive balance" in a context entirely unrelated to the sense conveyed by the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:17, 15 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 List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. MBisanz 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott "Tracker" Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a Non-notable character, filled with nothing but Plot summary. No references, all OR. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Ms. Kwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matt Oleander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Article written by author publicizing his own neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:09, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Krikorian Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This could be a WP:HOAX, but will WP:AGF that it isn't, however, there are no sources to give it WP:N, and there is also a conflict of interest in that the person who started the article is mentioned as owning this 'airline'. Russavia 02:53, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

per WP:CRYSTAL. Non-notable software add-on to a non-notable MMPORG. Also, the add-on has not yet been completed or released and I could not verify the project exists after several searches. Newsaholic (talk) 02:39, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The article is in no way notable. I did a Google search for "CJAX" and the only things that came up that relate to the framework were the official website and this Knowledge (XXG) article. There has been no talk about the software by reliable sources, and there seems to be little evidence suggesting that this will change soon. — Error 02:31, 15 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 CSD A7 -- Y not? 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tully Rinckey PLLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:COMPANY, lacks notability. Founder may be notable but that notability doesn't transfer to his company. Original creator appears to have COI issues as well.Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 15 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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Many issues with the biggest one being a Conflict of Intrest. Full details can be read by reading the talk page: Talk:E. J. Wells (musician)#COI Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 15 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. Spartaz 07:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Unencylopedic. The character is notable, but his weaponry is not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 15 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 G7 by TerriersFan and sandboxed. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kopachuck Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Middle school with no assertion of notability. A redirect to Peninsula School District was reverted by the creator. Either delete or protect the redirect.  Blanchardb -- timed 00:57, 15 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 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable game designer; no references to third-party reliable sources given. Links given in References section all describe projects and websites that he is involved in, rather than the subject himself. Judging from Google and Google News, which are all passing mentions of the subject in unreliable sources if not unrelated altogether, references that discuss the subject in detail are not likely to be forthcoming. Resoundingly fails to satisfy notability criteria for biographies. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The awards are for websites he setup or run and therefore shouldn't be used to prove the subject's notability. Just because YouTube or Google are notable websites does not automatically make the people who designed them notable. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Which two? All the ones given in the "References" section are not about Westerman himself, they're primarily about the award-winning websites he's been involved with. Only brief mention of the man himself is given in all of them. Nothing substantial enough for a separate biography. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 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 G7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Christmas with The Judds and Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yes, it's by two notable acts, and yes, it charted on Top Country Albums. But I'm finding absolutely no sources for it anywhere. 27 Google hits, no Google News hits, absolutely nothing on Allmusic, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:59, 15 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. It's always nice when an AfD regular happens to be a subject matter expert. Xymmax So let it be done 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable professor of mathematics of unknown notability. Article says 'known for his contributions to geometry and topology but no examples of notable contributions are provided. As written, does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria in WP:PROF. (Google pulls up his bio and little else.) Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

keep- I think sometimes people don't realise what 'professor' means in the UK. It means he was/is a head of department at a university, at least in his previous post. He has plenty of mentions in scholarly papers and some credits in books . He has proven some sort of theorem or something. Maths isn't 'trendy' so might not get in the papers etc but is still an encyclopedic subject, if anything even more so. Sticky Parkin 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I must admit a bit of ambivalence here myself. In general, we don't include (or don't seem to include) professors unless they have some particular theory or finding attributed to them that is notable. Counting the number of papers is not a great help since the lay editor cannot judge the quality of the journals in which they are published. There are many an academic with a long list of publications in second and third level journals who would appear notable by the standard of publication count. The same applies to credits in books. Since we, as lay editors, are not in a position to judge the quality of the work, we tend to rely on either an independent description of the notability of the work or, with some luck, professional awards that are notable. In this case, we don't seem to have either. Anyway, I'm curious to see what the rest of the wikiworld thinks and would particularly like to see what standards we should apply in the case of university professors. (Note: Here, in the US, a department chair, as in head of department, means little.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Point of information only: In the UK, the title of professor does not imply the person is (or ever was) head of a university department. As discussed at Professor#Most other English-speaking countries, there's some inconsistency in academic titles even within the UK at present. There are over 30 professors in the Warwick math dept—see their staff list. It is one of the top maths depts in the UK though (certainly top 5 i'd say). Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Additional: In most UK universities, the single rank or title of Professor equates to full, or possibly named, professor in the US. It happens that one or two, including Warwick, have gone to the "three-tier" model. At some universities it is or was true that only a professor would be a head of department, usually regarded as a rather more senior position than it is in the US. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete the way it is now. Professors I have no problem with, as long as they've done something--but that 'something' needs some cold hard evidence, and this article does not provide any. He is 'known' for things: known by whom? Not by anyone that I can establish, and the author's burden is to prove that he is in fact known. And RegentsPark, we are not actually given any of the work, so we couldn't possibly judge it. Was this written by one of his students? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands now. Does not establish notability. Being a UK professor is not enough to establish notability per WP:PROF. --Salix (talk): 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not only fails to establish notability, but fails to mention anything of interest. Why was this article created in the first place? -- Dominus (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    Keep. This is the guy who solved the Angel problem? Geez, why doesn't it say so? -- Dominus (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Brian Bowditch is actually a very well-known figure in geometric group theory and hyperbolic geometry. He has papers in Inventiones and JAMS, but he has other papers that are cited more, like the one in Duke with over 100 citations on Google Scholar. Warwick is a fairly strong math department, and his professorship is an indication of his status. But his work stands for itself. Recently, he proved the angel problem, which while from the viewpoint of his entire corpus of work is not that significant, it is a pretty famous problem and notable achievement in its own right. --C S (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find evidence he satisfies any of the criteria of WP:TEACH. The only one he might meet at present would seem to be criterion 1, namely "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". This is certainly not demonstrated in the article at present and the {{notability}} template has been in place since June, which seems enough notice to do something about it. MathSciNet reports that "Brian H. Bowditch is cited 484 times by 270 authors" (subscription req'd), topped by 53 for the 1995 paper in Duke Mathematical Journal to which C S refers above (see Knowledge (XXG):TEACH#Notes and Examples for reasons to prefer this count to Google Scholar's). Based on MathSciNet's citation counts, his h-index is 13 (13 papers cited at least 13 times each) and his g-index is 20 (top 20 papers have been cited an average of 20 times each), which seems respectable for a maths professor aged 46 or 47 rather than outstanding. His proof of the angel problem is covered in that article, and while it's certainly worth including there, and I don't think that proof alone makes him notable (the angel problem is hardly the Riemann hypothesis after all). Qwfp (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the citation record, which is relatively high for mathematics, certainly more than the average. The importance of a scholar is judged by that. That is the key way in which other scholars in the field show the notability, and we just mention it. I find it incomprehensible that after finding this record, the person who found it said it didn't matter. Full professor at a major university is normally notable- -even if not head of dept. That too shows the opinion of colleagues about the notability, and it is they who judge. One does not have to do work like solving the Riemann problem to be notable. Notability does not require fame, or we;'d be a very small encyclopedia. But I hope someone who knows enough to do it properly will quickly upgrade the article. DGG (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am on a wikibreak and travelling at the moment and will not have time to work on the article for a few days (I did not know that the article was created until I saw this AfD). I am a geometric group theorist myself (look at the WP articles I had written listed on my userpage) and I know Bowditch's work personally quite well. He is in fact a notable mathematician both in geometric group theory and in geometric topology. The articles Geometric group theory and Bass-Serre theory already mention, by name, some of his important contributions: the JSJ-decomposition theory for word-hyperbolic groups, his work on boundaries of hyperbolic groups, and his work on relative hyperbolicity. In geometric topology he is also a prominent name, particularly for his work on the curve complex, the study of the Teichmuller space and applications to 3-manifolds, Kleinian groups and mapping class groups. The high citability results, in GoogleScholar, and MathSciNet, demonstrate this convincingly. Let me also mention that a substantial number of his papers have been published in the toughest and most prestigious math journals, such as Inventiones Mathematicae, Acta Mathematica, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Crelle's Journal, Duke Mathematical Journal, and others. The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, and when I get back from the break I will do that, but it does deserve a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Another note: Bowditch had given an invited address at the 2004 European Congress of Mathematicians, also a significant sign of distinction. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet another note: Bowditch has been awarded the Whitehead Prize in 1997 by the London Mathematical Society (technically, a "Junior Whitehead Prize", which means for someone at most 15 years after PhD, but nevertheless a notable award). Here is a quote for a detailed award citation that was published in the Bulletin of LMS:"His deepest work is on the asymptotic properties of word-hyperbolic groups. This work simultaneously generalises and simplifies recent work of several authors, and it already has many applications. In one application, he develops a new theory of groups acting on dendrites. Building on previous contributions of G. Levitt, G. A. Swarup and others, this led him to a solution of the `cut-point conjecture'. This recent work also yields a characterisation of word-hyperbolic groups as convergence groups. Bowditch has solved several major problems in geometric group theory using methods that are elegant and as elementary as they can be." Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 15 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 In retrospect, I probably should have just wiped out this nomination instead of fixing it, but I was trying to WP:AGF on the nominator's part. The organization in question is clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Nominating for deletion due to the following points:

  • The very inception of the article appears to be based on some sort of personal grudge by the creator of the article, who in the first AFD discussion admitted himself that the subject was not notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox.
  • An accurate article cannot be written on the Living Word Fellowship without conducting original research. The creator wrote in the AFD discussion: “It is nearly impossible to ascertain the beliefs of this church without attending regularly.” The subject’s official website says that the founder “had authored more than 11,000 recorded sermons and hundreds of written messages.” After exhaustive research, I can find no third-party source that has performed enough research to produce a reliable source on this subject.
  • “Another Gospel”, cannot be considered reliable when even reviewers on Amazon are noting glaring errors (please see debbieannconway’s review at: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Gospel-Ruth-Tucker/dp/0310404401). The book also cannot be considered neutral enough to be the foundation of an entire article as it is clear in its attempt to critique religions according to orthodox Christian beliefs and comes to conclusions based on a pre-existing agenda. Discussion was created by User:LikesPoodles who overwrote the first deletion discussion by mistake, moved here by me. I have no opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - There are plenty of nontrivial third-party sources describing this organization, including (but not limited to) the book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, the People magazine article about Tony Cox's report of his experiences, and Tony Cox's documentary film. The fact that these sources are not a sufficient basis for writing the complete and definitive story of this organization does not change the fact that the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 15 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

NN band, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:07, 10 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) 00:46, 15 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. Spartaz 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DeathStation 9000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and non notable usenet joke term. Ref 1 is not about the DS9K, Ref 2 is just a joke site MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 10 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) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Could be summed up in two sentences, and thus not worth an article. IRK!Leave me a note or two 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Anything that can be sourced only to Usenet is not notable, I'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • strong delete- basic google hits make no odds. Anyone can write anything on usenet and on the internets. No reliable sources exist at all, no mentions in newspapers, books or in academic papers, of course.:) Sticky Parkin 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- the otters speak wisely. This concept is mildly amusing but, in the end, just something made up one day. Reyk YO! 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment interesting, i didnt realise usenet was viewed so poorly. before there was a wikipedia or even a www thoughtful people such as yourselves :) used to hang out there. indeed wikipedia is absolutely dripping with usenet/unix/c/hacker culture. but anyway i digress, i only wish to address the idea that DS9K is only a joke term, sure theres some humour there but it addresses a real issue, which is that newbie c programmers are often completely thrown by the idea that there is something undefined within the language (the infamous 'i = i++;' statement ) it just doesnt fit their (newbie) worldview, they're used to the idea that they have complete control of the operating system and the language. so to get across the idea that sometimes they dont, they really really dont, takes a little exaggeration. finally, as to 'Anyone can write anything on usenet', sure, anyone can write anything here too, it gets corrected tho, and its the same with groups such as comp.lang.c. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, maybe wikipedia does have elements of usenet because people can technically write anything, however, that's why we don't use wikis or wikipedia itself as a reliable source to reference articles. Sticky Parkin 15:22, 15 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 The New Jedi Order. If people want to make a more specific redirect, feel free to do so. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced plot summary for a series of marginally notable in-universe, wholly non-notable out-of-universe, characters. --EEMIV (talk) 00:12, 15 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 consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This biography of a living person was created and edited last month by Digger3d, NebojsaStanojevic, 92.36.189.68, and Kesakoxxxl. RGTraynor tagged it for deletion last week as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising (I deleted and undeleted it, DGG deleted it). As per the discussion on *User talk:Athaenara#Nebojsa Stanojevic, I undeleted it today to list it for wider discussion here. — Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

*(Now in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6#Nebojsa Stanojevic.) – Athaenara ✉ 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I tried that search, but with the guy's name in quotes, and without blogspot.com, wikipedia, googlepages.com, digger3d.com, and video.google.com. Result: pretty much nothing. If you take out the WP:PEACOCK and WP:COI, there's nothing usable left. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:17, 17 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.

↑