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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi - apologies if I've misunderstod but, I am proposing to ""delete"".

• I nominated for deletion last week, but it was undone without discussion.
• On rooting around, I see the consensus last time was to delete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donal_Blaney

• Another editor did respond to my deletion proposal by supplying more references. Fair enough. But the central reason for my proposed deletion, however, is notability - not verifiability.

This guy was a junior official in a political party ten years ago, then got investigated for racism. Definitively un-notable. Given the detail on the CV, it seems a fairly obvious vanity article. Who else would know when this guy was head of Southampton Young Tories?

So, yeah -- Delete - oh, and looking at the previous log ""watch for sockpuppets"". Pistachiones(talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete doesn't appear to be particularly notable and the artilce is definitely weirdly CVish. Speedy G4 if significantly the same as the previously deleted artilce. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete - isn't the point that he is currently founder and chairman of the Young Britons' Foundation, not what he did 10 years ago?

Thw fact that that isn't obvious suggests we still ""delete"". The Young Britons Foundation has a page -mention him as founder there. I'm quit surprised the Young Britons Foundation has a page - let alone its officers! This guy, bless 'im, clearly isn't wikinotable. Papyrus - and if you're listing him as a "Television" or "business" person, doubly so!

• I'm not sure how that makes this an obvious delete. Can you discuss further? Mystache (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[n.b. - edited because I forgot to log in...] Pistachiones (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability established by hague probe, Verifiability by guardian. Mystache (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was being flippant before - but the criteria for politicans are:

- "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." <-- he clearly fails on this test. - "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence" <-- he clearly fails on this one, especially since this needs "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic". The Hague investigation - about which nothing was heard, and which happened nine years ago - does not qualify him.

Being chairman of an insignficant institution which he founded obviously does not justify wikinotability. It's a complete non-entity. Pistachiones (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other thoughts? We have two 'deletes' and one 'keep' thus far. I am, of course, biased, but I do think the argument for keeping doesn't hold water. Pistachiones (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability found. Article does need major rewrite to fall in line with WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search does not indicate notability. all it does is show someone with his name exists, and one of them is the head of a non-notable organisation. no-one has contested that he is the head of YB, so what does the search prove? Being mentioned in articles about the organisation is not non-trivial coverage. there are specific guidelines indicating criteria of whether a politician is notable enough for an article, and he doesn't pass them.Yobmod (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is known good, has had notability established several times (see previous AfD collection), and the nomination at best a political statement at worst an attempt to cause drama by an account created only for that purpose. — Coren ^(talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable only within the context of the project. Otherwise doing harm, and non notable in a global context. Segragate account (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I have no idea who is behind this newly created account for the sole purpose of an AfD -- and incidentally, the correct spelling is "segregate" not "segragate" -- but a GA-rated article, which is well-referenced using reliable sources from independent third-parties, is only one of many reasons why this highly stable article is still around, I suspect. Another (more important) reason is because authors are *still* talking about it. The Irish Independent, in fact, just published an article on 20 September 2008 (a few days ago) entitled "Lies, damned lies and the internet" in which the Essjay controversy was discussed. Since April 2007, writers and academics continue to publish on the "Essjay controversy" with articles not yet referenced in our article. According to Factiva, I count over one hundred articles in several different languages including Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and Italian -- all discussing the "Essjay controversy" and what it means for the internet. You'll also find articles discussing the "Essjay controversy" in other English-language media ranging from the Bangkok Post to the Jerusalem Herald. Donna Shaw wrote an academic article for the American Journalism Review discussing the Essjay controversy this year (February 2008). Then there are the legal cases. Last year, we were discussing in the archives about the possibility of creating a legal section in which we cite all the court cases that used the "Essjay controversy" as background. I suppose that section should be created now. Overall, based on the published evidence, the "Essay controversy" is still very much a relevant topic for discussion and debate among journalists, academics, lawyers, and internet activists. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per J Readings and also WP:SNOW. Dr.K. (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather doubt WP:SNOW applies when yours is the second comment. The AfD has only been open for a few hours, and it is not currently showing up on the AfD log, so that may be why it is not receiving many comments. Risker (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOW applies also when there is no logical way to think of deleting this article given: 1. Its past deletion debates and their results. 2. Common logic given its significance in Wikipedia's history. I could add a few more reasons but I think I made my point. Dr.K. (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep No policy reason for deletion. Sources clearly meet WP:N and way way past. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE - youth cricket is not major cricket, and he has not competed in any form of it thereof according to the two most reliable sources on cricket: Cricinfo & CricketArchive. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Long-established consensus that under-19 cricket is not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:ATHLETE (see WP:CRIN). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AllynJ. Johnlp (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lawson (board games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Designer of a series of red-linked board games and there's no evidence he's notable for any other work. According to the article, he "no longer publishes any games." Don't think it's a viable search term so a re-direct isn't particularly beneficial TravellingCari 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable board game designer. The first external link doesn't provide enough reliable information. SchfiftyThree 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, not covered by enough outside sources. Possibly self promotion? Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing notability and verifiability policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable mid-level leader in the LDS Church. He is an "area seventy", which is not even a full-time ecclesiastical position. They work on a volunteer part-time basis; there are a few hundred in the world, and they get rotated every 5 years or so (i.e. it is not a life-tenured position). I would venture to say he's not even notable within the LDS Church. Currently, the only references in this article are to publications that are published by an entity that the church owns. (The Church News is published by Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS Church). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable for anything other than having once been married to Michael Aquino, previously deleted for lack of nobility. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability can be established. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article does assert notability. It states that she has been a high-profile member and spokesperson for the Church of Satan, appearing "on numerous television and radio programs, even being interviewed by Time magazine." Now that clearly makes her notable, and the present lack of references is ground for a maintenance request, not an AfD. __meco (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment -- article asserts notability, which is why it wasn't a speedy. Whether it establishes notability is another question. Simply put, if Michael Aquino isn't notable enough for an article, his ex-wife (who is much less significant even among Setians, Satanists, etc.), who is mostly notable because of his connection with him, isn't either. The maintenance requests have been on the article for almost a year. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That is warped reasoning. Michael Aquino is not notable because insufficient reliable sources document his purported stature and activities. Should any such sources surface he may suddenly become notable. Lilith Aquino must be estimated for notability not based on the inability of Wikipedia editors to find reliable sources on her husband but on her own merits. If an interview with her in Time magazine exists, that is almost certainly sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. That is why I focused on this alleged fact and assert that our focus ought to be the question of whether that claim is true or not, for which an AFD is not the appropriate procedure. Unless someone has reason to suspect that this claim is false and can convincingly elaborate on that, we should tag the statement in question with {{fact}} and then, if after a suitable time period, noone comes up with a concrete reference we can remove that statement, and then the article could easily be prod'ed or AFD'd, take you pick. Also, had there been any BLP concerns which motivated a wish to have the article deleted, the unreferenced Time statement would not be enough to protect the article's existence pending a prolonged period waiting for a reference request to be fulfilled. There seems not to be any BLP concerns regarding having this article. __meco (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor any evidence of notability. Feel free to find it; it's been a year since the article was tagged. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Have you tried searching the Time website, which has archives of just about everything they have ever published, for a interview of her? Lilith Aquino, Lilith Sinclair, Patricia Sinclair, all turned up nothing. The only relevant news stories I can seem to find refer to a single incident where a suit she brought over dismissal from her job was decided against her as she was fired for being "unfriendly... not a witch".[1] There are mentions of 'Lilith Aquino' and 'Time Magazine' on the internet.. on the sites of conspiracy theorists I'm not going to bother to look at.[2] John Nevard (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as at the very least a nonnotable club, and a borderline attack page.  – iridescent 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It just gave this a quick once over, but it looks like a wp:MADEUPINONEDAY violation. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as already tagged. Non-notable cult, so it falls under A7. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I can just tag these as A7 violations instead? Sweet :) I've prodded/sent them here because I think one was declined on me once, I believe. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for religious cults made up whilst bored in school one day. Absolute rubbish. Nerdluck34 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability not established. Lead implies he is a prominent figure in the homeschooling movement, but body of article may fail to establish this. The article may be primarily OR; it is nearly all about investigating the academic portion of subject's curriculum vitae. Hurmata (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create this article, but did have a hand in expanding it. The original article was a puff piece but I believe did establish his notability. Please, if you find an instance of OR in this article point it out and excise it by all means. However, as it stands DeMille is notable enough for an article, and the tedium kind of is what it is. The man has a lot of educational claims; the article sources the detail behind them. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit for POV. The present article come very close to being an attack piece, example a "see also:Resume fraud" at the third sub heading, which I have now removed, and other parts represent OR. see for example the discussions of the general nature of a PhD, intended to imply that his wasn't genuine. This may or may not be true, but we just give the facts, without leading the reader to the conclusion--and we do not editorialize by boxed quotes. I can understand why upon seeing this article, one might want to remove it, but the solution is editing. I've just now removed some of the worst, but it's still in the page history as a bad example--and I have not yet attempted to rewrite the part aboput the degrees. . (there's some equally bad editing in the other direction a little further back). DGG (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was even worse than I though--a good the bio was devoted to negative allegations sourced only by a personal web site. I have removed that source, and everything depending upon it. I think I got all or almost all of it, but I think there is enough left for an article, and to show that he's notable.DGG (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In working on it, I observe that UserTruth had readded much of the prejudicial poorly sourced material, and inserted additional material from primary sources, intended to suggest by malfeasance of various sorts, in what amounts to OR. If it is the intention of that user to make an article impossible, he is trying hard. I have just made another pass removing improper material. I think this article should be kept, but it will need watching. I have warned the editor mentioned about WP:BLP. If he continues to violate it, I will consider banning him from the article.DGG (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely untrue. Please respect WP:CIV. I have re-added none of the material you removed, and added nothing prejudicial, and nothing from the Diploma DeMille article. Check the history. Yes, I have presented the multiple versions of his CV in a table, but that is hardly OR. Each line in the table is primary-sourced. All I have done vis-a-vis the DD article since you removed most of its related material is add information in the footnote on the article's inclusion in a third-party journal. --TrustTruth (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He seems notable enough. The article is very hard to follow however. I feel that I should say that a person could have an irregular education and go on to do great things, or have an outstanding education and never be notable. So more of the article could be about what he has done and less about his education. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the flow needs work. I think the education section (which could definitely be pared down) is important based on the fact that his books and speaking engagements etc. are almost entirely based on his own educational experience (his version of it at least). Since he brings up the topic so much, that's an open invitation for increased scrutiny, hence the large amount of content in that section. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet WP:PROF. The article itself could use improvement but that isn't a reason to delete it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This element of fiction 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) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep why are you copying and pasting that reason on several articles? Anyways, this is Not at all a plot summary. I see no original research either. Or on many of your other AfD Melune (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unencyclopedic snippet of fancruft. --MCB (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; Unfortunately, I can't find any citations, so regrettably, it has to go. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'd try to get the information merged somewhere in the description of the game play. Calling the contents plot summary, though, seems to be expanding the meaning significantly. Nor does it really represent OR to describe a weapon in a game from primary sources. But still, there isn't enough information to stand alone, even though its a major game. I try to make sure my answer shows that I did at least read through the article in question and have some idea of the context. DGG (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge not OR or Plot Summary really but, not notable enough for its own article either. Redirect or merge to the character, the book, or similar artilce. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge per Jasynnash2. Because of the lack of notability of this fictional element, all article expansions would result in violations of PLOT and OR, so that's why this stub shouldn't be kept as its own article. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:PLOT and WP:GNG apply here, as clarified in WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to V (science fiction). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dust (V series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction 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) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to' V (science fiction), as it is a prominent plot element to the TV series, and the climax for the miniseries. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeas specified just above. It would greatly help the main article, which is not clear without it, and be exactly the proportional discussion of plot called for in WP:NOT It is time we revisited these articles in a systematic way, to get he material were it is most appropriate. A redirect would be appropriate, for it's a memorable term. DGG (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as both the above. Redirect red dust as a search term if appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG. Recurring fictional elements in major series are worthy to be mentioned somewhere on wikipedia, just not as separate articles (unless they establish their notability). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per DGG. I agree 100% ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction 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) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Series? Sounds like a cut-and-paste deletion spree. Anyway, it's quite notable as these numerous sources indicate. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. I didnt notice but this isnt the only afd with that reason. Word for word. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plot summary? What do you mean, this is certainly Notable, has good syntax, and, if my understanding is correct, is also part of a memecentric (yes I made that word up,) internet culture and if deleted will come back repeatedly most likely. Plus, if we add in the meme part, you've got culture. Wasn't this up for deletion once before? And was kept then. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article currently has nothing to show that the topic requires any more than a mention with a main popular culture section in the main article. Many aspects of the film have some sort of impact here and there, but as shown by the link above, they are mainly covered in the context of the plot. TTN (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but delete most or all of the trivia section (gasp, I meant "popular culture" section). Wednesday Next (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Things like [3] and [4] indicate it is very commonly referenced in popular culture. Sources are diverse and each not overly on topic, but overall, just fine. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the movie's page. This is VERY, VERY fancrufty and certainly does not warrant independent encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the entire trivia section as unencyclopedic. Merge and redirect what's left to the movie's page. This level of detail is far too deep for a joke that took less than two minutes in the movie. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable and unoriginal research. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yea, though ye count to three, the Article be kept; four being right out. Counteth to two, it sufficeth not. Keep, and lo, the Killer Rabbit slain shall be, and thy Fame (and that of the article in Wikipedia) assured shall be; Notability assured; and thy Fame endureth for all time. Keep, I say, keep! Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per all of the above. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - It's one of the most, if not THE most, recognizable parts of the movie, used extensively in popular culture. Not fancruft, as stated by Eusebeus, when it's immediately recognized just by mere mention, even by people who have never seen the movie itself. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep When something has multiple independent sources, then an argument that it is trivial none the less seems to ignore WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but, rewrite somewhat (removing the instructions and incorporating some of the more important "trivia" things from the bottom into the body of the article. Sources for its influence on other fictional magic items, etc would also help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This 'element of fiction' is more than thirty years old, but our article on it is still read 230 times per day on average. That's plenty of 'independent sources' establishing this as notable... oh and then there are all those books too. --CBD 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zorg ZF-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction 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) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's mentioned in the main article for The Fifth Element and I think that is enough. Since Zorg is a main character, and already has a redirect, I cannot see creating one also for the weapon. I wish at least this much level of explanation had been present in the nomination to facilitate the discussion. But I too want to se such articles deleted, and I'll try to fill the gaps in the rationale. DGG (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not particularly notable and unlikely search term. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and basically a paraphrase of the movie (with all the copyright implications that come with such things). Nburden ^(T) 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as unoriginal research and because we are a collection of info.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ffm 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of the article is supposed to be "the first transgender ever in India to perform a leading role in a mainstream movie", however the movie has not been filmed, the director is not found in IMDB, nor is the actress. The article fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. The two sources given do not have "significant coverage", but barely a paragraph each about the "actress". SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sourcing I added to the artcle. Notability for this person is available. Article needs expansion and improvement, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agree with Michael Schmidt. Apparently, the person seems to have become notable and popular in that part of the world even before the movie has been released. Docku:“what up?” 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note that none of those sources have "significant coverage" about the person in question. There are no more than five or six sentences about Karpaga in each one, often repeating. Most of those sources are about the movie. If no sources can be found that are about the person, I recommend this page be move to Paal and be re-focused to be about the movie. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It must be noted that transgenderism has for the most part been unaccepted in India [5], [6], [7], and is only now "coming out of the closet" [8], [9], [10], so in-depth interviews may be slow in coming. No doubt as filming of Paal begins there will be more and greater focus on and interviews of Karpaga and fellow Indian transsexual celebrities. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chuckle_Brothers#Stage. Not much else you can do, all the content is in the main article. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Chuckles and The Kingdom of the Mythical Sulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability, not appropriate for a speedy deletion --RedHillian | Talk 20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chuckle Brothers. --erachima talk 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per erachima; it exists but no sign of notability. --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chuckle_Brothers#Stage where this tour is discussed. Notability not asserted in article, nor was it found in a gsearch. Gnews only came up with this, but I can't really assess the reliability or independence.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ffm 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable pseudo-location. Seems to be a neologism - see a google search that turns up 435 hits, mostly wiki-copies. Would suggest merge, but the page seems to be entirely a directory or guidebook. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I found some references in the Sacramento Bee, NPR and LA Times: [11]. It's enough to confirm there's something by this name in Midtown Sacramento, but it's unclear if this is an official designation or just a nickname some people have for part of Midtown Sacramento. If it's the former this probably deserves an article, but I'm assuming it's the latter, so merge to Midtown Sacramento. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lavender Heights is on SN&R literature and is the known name of this location. rkmlai (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (of Sacramento)[reply]

SN&R? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento News & Review, locally known as SN&R.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a distinct "gay village"district in Sacramento. Like The Castro in San Francisco, it isn't an "official" municipality, but sources like the Sacramento Bee frequently refer to it as specific neighborhood that's the center of the city's LGBT community. [12] --Oakshade (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia's notability requires "significant coverage from multiple third-party sources". As far as I can tell, people are putting up links that mention the place by name, but don't give it "significant coverage" - unlike The Castro, which has books, news, and websites about the place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of WP:NOTABILITY and I'm also aware that the wording is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." (the word "multiple" is not included in guideline.) Even the CBS 13 piece is significant coverage by a reliable source in addition to the Sacramento Bee pieces.--Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - wait a minute. Are you seriously considering a video of less than one minute (in which the reporter says "Fabulous" in a lisp at least four times for no reason) to be significant coverage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant. Television shows/reports are considered reliable sources and in this case, beyond WP:N's scope of "trivial," whether a reporter says "Fabulous" with a lisp or not. (more than a minute, btw) --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only significant if it's actually *about* Lavender Heights. The piece is less than a minute (when you take out the news anchors wind-up) about how to revitalize a neighborhood. The only thing the piece actually says about Lavender Heights is that it's been revitalized. And that it's fabulous. If you want a laugh, I recommend watching it - it could not be considered "significant" by any stretch. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it before my first comment. As WP:NOTABILITY defines "significant coverage": "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." "Less than exclusive" means the sources don't have to be exclusively *about* the topic as you are claiming. The CBS 13 piece news piece shows in detail of how Lavender Heights has been improved. It goes in depth about the neighborhood, even in its minute. "Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY is a "passing mention" or a "directory listing". Even by your critical description, it goes beyond the scope of either of those. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My gut feeling was that while this neighborhood is well known in Sacramento, it probably wasn't known outside the area. However, a gnews search comes up with the neighborhood being called this in the LA Times, Seattle Times, and even NPR. Works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought. Merge/redirect to Midtown Sacramento also works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Lavender Heights", keep, and mark as an informal place-name. To me the title syntax "Lavender Heights, California" suggests an official city name. --Lockley (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept per finding of sources, nominator withdrawal, and some light frost. Non-admin closure. --erachima talk 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

this article has had nearly 3 years since its last afd. still no sources have been found. if the claims in the article are true then sources should be available and once found the article rewritten accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment i agree that the new article, based on the sources found since opening this afd, can be kept. it can still be greatly improved if further sources can be found. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... how do you source an article like this anyway? If the concern is simply having a source for the definition of opposite day, then The Game-a-Day Book by Gyles Brandreth, published 1980, might be a suitable reference. It's a book (which I own) that contains the rules for various children's games and has opposite day as one of its entries. For the liar's paradox bit I suppose the best resource would be books about logic puzzles. --erachima talk 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I originally read the article looked at the nominators position and went Delete. Than I took a moment, stepped back and did a quick Google News search and lo and behold it came back with quite a few hits, such as the Economist – CNN – Washington Times & The Daily Princeton to name a few, as shown here [13]. Article needs to be expanded not eliminated. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if such sources do exist then they need to be added to the article and the article rewritten so that all the information is sourced by them. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article does need considerable cleanup, but that's not an AFD concern. I did a 5-minute, toss-some-references-in pass, but there's a lot out there for further development. Children's games and similar topics are sometimes challenging to document, but in this case, there's no shortage of material. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't the article need to be rewritten based soley on these sources? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep: per the reliable sources that was found. Schuym1 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep cf following sources http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a793155733~db=all, http://disputatio.com/articles/024-1.pdf , http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/39344/173611526.pdf?sequence=1 Nick Connolly (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because today isn't opposite day Nick Connolly (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I took a look at the sources provided and they barely focus on opposite day. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. One fairly good source [14], lots and lots of weak sources. [15], [16], [17]. It's well-known (100,000+ Ghits) and has "good enough" sources for WP:N. So keep. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason i brought this to afd was concerns over wp:v rather than wp:n. none of the information in the article was supported by reliable sources. now some have been added but the majority of the article remains unsourced. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a reason to clean up the article, not to delete. If you don't like the sourcing, either add sources, trim the article, or request cleanup. AfD isn't for cleanup. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you except to the point where there are not enough reliable sources to create more than one sentence of sourced information. if something is notable but no reliable sources can be found to support enough information to write an article, even a stub, then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Dang, I have to change my vote again. Schuym1 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2008
• keep the nomination asserted no sources, but it seems from what others have found, did not actually check. I have made a proposal on the AfD talk page to ake a simple procedural change that would help in such cases, which are fairly widespread--I intend no individual criticism. DGG (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

none taken. however i did check. i couldn't find any suitable sources to based an entire article on, and i don't believe the current ones are suitable either. so far all the information that can be sourced would be something along the lines of "opposite day is a game whereby on that day, things have the opposite meaning". this is hardly article material. as i said in my nomination, this was brought to afd 3 years ago, and kept on the assumption that sources would be found. none have. we need secondary reliable sources with enough information about opposite day to source an entire article. if you think these exist then please rewrite the article accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Upon glancing at this AFD my first instinct was to write "keep per the new sources". However having now looked at these sources, I don't feel it would be right to do so. Am I missing something obvious, or do none of the sources being cited above provide any actual information about Opposite Day? The google news hits (at least, those that I can find) don't appear to discuss "Opposite Day" at all in this context, while most of the remaining sources above, while they use the term "Opposite Day", they don't cover the phenomenon in any detail and simply use it as a descriptive term or to introduce a philosophical concept. For example, the article begins with "Opposite Day is a fictional holiday which is celebrated by many schoolchildren" - but none of the sources cited so far, that I can see, contain anything that supports this. Basically the only information we have from the sources is a brief definition and I fear that unless we find an article actually covering Opposite Day as a "fictional holiday celebrated by many schoolchildren", rather than a philosophical term or a term used to introduce an exercise, we risk ending up with an article that is just full of WP:OR. I'll hold back my !vote for now while I try to find some more informative sources and take a closer look through those cited above in case I'm missing something glaringly obvious. Wiw8 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, the exact verbiage used in the article is an editorial concern. When I did a quick cleanup pass to introduce what was admittedly intended as the first round of refs, I kept the lede phrasing generally intact. Is Opposite Day a "fictional holiday" or a "childhood game"? I'm not sure, and we'll probably have to cull more sources to conclude either way. Either way, we could (and often do) far worse than we would by having an article that defines the activity in broad and basic terms, references it to child development sources (like Preschool Confidential, which devotes a section to it), and addresses its adoption as an educational and test-prep aid. Are we aiming for FA here? Probably not, but children's topics are notoriously under-cited in serious literature. Regardless, my quest for more cites continues... Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What we have currently is a plethora of sources that assert the existence of opposite day. That is sufficient to establish notability of opposite day. Any claims in the article about opposite day do need further sourcing but that is a separate question from whether the article should be deleted. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from wp:v:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information. – Jimmy Wales

Jessi1989 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, remove the information if needed, keep the article. That said, #1 It appears you modified the quote and #2 If we removed every single non-cited fact on wikipedia, we'd lose 90% of it. This isn't pseudo-information. Do you honesty doubt the truth of any of this article? If so, _that_ in particular should be removed. AfD isn't for clean up. Editing is. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. i only removed the last clause of the quote because it was not relevant to this discussion. 2. the fact is, if we would lose 90% of wikipedia then it would be a better encyclopedia, and every article would be written according to at least one of its policies. wikipedia policies are there for a reason and they are non-negotiable. my or your thoughts on the truth of this matter are irrelevant. i did not bring this to afd because of my personal feelings as to whether this topic is true. i brought it to afd because no reliable sources had been found in over three years. nothing should exist on wikipedia without sources for three minutes, let alone three years. i repeat, these are not my personal opinions, these are wikipedia policies which every article should abide by. here's another quote from wp:v although i suggest you read the whole page:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Jessi1989 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that there is material here that you are challenging or find likely to be challenged? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am challenging any information that is not supported by a reliable secondary source, which is currently the entire article except for this sentence "Because it encourages understanding of antonyms and critical thinking, Opposite Day play has been compared to a children's "philosophy course", employed as an educational aid, and suggested as preparation for standardized testing." Jessi1989 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to make a WP:POINT here. Articles are required to be verifiable, not verified. The article has gone unsourced for three years because the claims it makes are trivial, thus do not require attribution per WP:CS, and no one has complained about the page but policy wanks. Also note that I offered a source for the basic tenants of the page above. --erachima talk 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but you have clearly misunderstood wp:v. all information in every wikipedia article is required to be verified by at least one reliable secondary source. please read wp:v and wp:rs. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read 'em and wrote 'em, what's your point? The relevant policy statement here is from WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (bolding in the original). Additionally, the "I challenge every statement in the article" stance has been repeatedly ruled a disruptive and lawyerly approach to improving articles, as it wastes the community's energy on the correction of technicalities rather than in the performance of higher priority tasks.

In short, if you find an uncited page but do not honestly believe that its claims are inaccurate, then you do not waste our time attempting to delete it, as adding citations to non-exceptional statements is not an urgent fix but rather an eventual improvement to be made when an interested editor decides to do so. If you feel compelled, you may fix the reference problems yourself, or tag the page for needing additional references with {{uncited}} or {{refimprove}}. --erachima talk 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i hardly think i have wasted anyone's time here. this article was tagged for ages and no sources were added for years. because of this afd, editors have helped to find sources and i have re-written the article based on them. hopefully this afd will also encourage editors to find more sources on this subject and improve the article further. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi again, sorry but i didn't see you first paragraph and only responded to the second. i think maybe you didn't have a look at what this article looked like when i took it to afd. i wasn't just challenging some technicalities as you suggest, the entire article was unsourced. i completely agree that if someone disagrees with a few sentences of an article then they should not take it to afd. sorry for the confusion, but what you have interpreted as an "i challenge every statement in the article" stance was actually me saying "nothing in the article was sourced". anyway, i think with the sources that have been found since i brought this to afd an article can be written. after three years with no sources i hardly think that you can say that this afd hasn't benefited the encyclopedia. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i have rewritten the article based on the new sources that have been provided. i think this version can be kept although it is desperate need of more sourced information. please improve the article if you can. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. NAC.Schuym1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced. Google hits. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, wait. You're citing low Google hits as an argument against including an athlete from the 70s? That strikes me as a very poor method. The fact that he's an Olympic athlete and set a national record makes it seem likely to me that he's notable, just not easily Googleable. --erachima talk 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Olympic competition would seem to be, prima facie, the highest level of amateur sports. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on guys!! Drew McMaster was an exceptionally important member of both the Scottish and UK 100 metre sprint relay teams of the late 70's and early 80's. For that reason alone he should remain in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven120965 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think keep I'm not that up on sports, but it appears he was in something calling itself the olympics, and an edmonton commonwealth games (I don't know if that's the same as the real Commonwealth games. If the Summer Olympics is a real Olympics, that means he's competed at the highest level of his sport, so meets WP:NOTE for sportsmen. Sticky Parkin 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: He was in the Olympics. Schuym1 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep (If I had a bit more time I'd procedurally close this; I encourage someone else to!) This AfD was created by an enthusiastic editor who Just Does Not Get It. He is currently banned because whilst he appears to mean well, he hasn't read, or at least has not understood, the policies and is just causing havoc. Clearly, this article is not a candidate for deletion. Ros0709 (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep. He competed in an Olympiad - prima facie evidence of notability. Doesn't matter how long ago or whether he has been forgotten - as per Serpent's Choice he is of note. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criteria G4 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined speedy because we don't have WP:CRYSTAL as part of the speedy criteria at present. This movie may come out next year, but there isn't much in the way of sources out there, and someone's obviously taking the mickey with its IMDB entry... all in all, WP:CRYSTAL issues, no sources, so delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being a crystal ball. Also, the IMDb entry isn't very reliable as the movie is going to be released a year from now, lots of time from now to next year to change something. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been G4'ed, so closing. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable "health writer". He came up with the recipes for a non-notable diet book written by his father. The article has reliable sources but none that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be an indirect advertisement for the diet book. --erachima talk 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I forgot to mention in my nomination that the article was created by and expanded by a number of single-purpose accounts—Legend00 (talk · contribs), Healthyfoodguy0 (talk · contribs), and Fatres (talk · contribs)—all of whom edited only articles related to Jonathan Galland, including his brother Jordan Galland (and his movie). Precious Roy (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fatres (talk · contribs) changed name to StarScreen (talk · contribs), less than an hour after the above comment was posted Precious Roy (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Author is notable because 1) meets the notability guidline for co creating a work that has been the subject of numerous articles and that is in major libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC) — Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Galland is not credited as the co-creator. If you look at the book on Amazon, you'll find he's not credited at all on the cover. If you look at the copyright page, his credit (well down the page) is "Recipes by Jonathan Galland". Additionally, at the top of the copyright page there's a disclaimer that starts, "Not the publisher, nor the author, nor the recipe writer...". So his official credit is "recipe writer" and a distinction has been made between that credit and "author". Precious Roy (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of the references vaguely cited, like the one in The Ecologist, published by MIT and a very RS, turn out when tracked down to be about his father "Leon Galland" who may well be notable, since that article refers to him as an "nternationally recognised expert in nutrition" [18]. As for the book, his father wrote it, not he. DGG (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Jonathan Galland meets the definition of notabilty provided in Wikipedia, please see; "journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" Clearly, writing over 100 pages of recipes and meal plans qualifies as "a major role in co-creating" a work which ahs been the subject of multiple periodical articles or reviews' Because of his role in co-creating The Fat Resistance Diet, and because the book has been the subject of many articles, he is notable under the definition provided by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only !vote once. — Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Meets the Notability rules provided in Wikipedia Notability(People) for Creative Professionals. Therefore there is no basis for deletion. Unfortunately there seems to be an error by the editors in this case. Please simply follow the definition of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalmeaning (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already been asked once not to !vote more than once. Corvus cornix_talk 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, my fault. That comment was posted last but at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom so everything was in chronological order. Precious Roy (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as spamvertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files... SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is spam. Simple, open and shut spam. --Terrillja (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• {{db-spam}} --erachima talk 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Michael. Notability isn't inherited so a clear redirect (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NOTE and the BIO guidelines, as reflected in the article itself: best known as the lover of George Michael. Article contains no information not already found in the George Michael article, and also contains info boxes relating to George Michael. No real possibility of expansion. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I agree with the nominator that Anselmo Feleppa relationship with George Michael’s is his only claim to Notability. However, I believe he has generated enough interest in the press, as shown here [19] that a redirect to the George Michael article is more appropriate than a deletion. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd completely support a redirect. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to George Michael because relationships do not confer notability.. Tosqueira (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEU Cheering Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group of cheerleaders. Parallel articles about the school's cheering groups have been deleted. No reliable sources as to this organization's notability. A minimal paragraph about the squad could be added to the school's article. Corvus cornix_talk 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article about a cheerleading group that has no reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 09:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a singer/performer/mail order businessman/informercial star of dubious notability, written in an somewhat advertorial tone. Not to be confused with the indie rock singer Santogold, this Santo Gold (aka Santo V. Rigatuso, Bob Harris) already has a mention on Wikipedia as the producer of Blood Circus, a film-come-infomercial of very minor cult status (Googling on "santo gold" & "blood circus" yields only a few hundred results, few if any of which seem suitable for verifying a biography on this guy). The bottom line is that without the existence of sources of an independent and reliable nature, Santo Gold does not merit an article. H.G. 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your definition of "Dubious Notability". HERE [20] is a plethora of information as to his notability. He was one of the first people to utilize late night infomercials to hock his product. And without him you'd not have the Santogold entry here in Wikipedia.

However bad he is or what he has done, most people over 35 recall this guy, the product, and the movie Blood Circus from those ridiculous commercials.

Why not try to improve the article rather than delete it.--Feddx (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think geocities is WP:RS?:) He has a fraud conviction, [21] if the article is kept that could be mentioned for WP:NPOV. Sticky Parkin 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(@Feddx, after edit conflict) The Geocities website doesn't attest to notability. On Wikipedia, notability is measured in terms of nontrivial coverage in independent and reliable sources; a self-published website from someone with no special expertise in the area does not count as reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. H.G. 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/speedy- this could actually have been speedied as advertising. The only google mentions for "santo rigatuso" -all 8 of them [22] are for his convictions or fines. The same for the extra five entries for his jewellery business- [23] all 13 0f them are about scandals surrounding them/him, or one which is an advert. Sticky Parkin 20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.... but I do think legal documents from a court case in US vs Rigatuso are (see here[[24]]).

You cannot deny that he WAS on TV across the nation. I still meet people to this day that saw the commercials in California and Florida. I'm saying I'm sure there is a lot of information out there on this guy (also known as Santo V. Rigatuso, or Bob Harris). The article needs citations and information. So instead of just deleting the article because you don't know who he is, let people who have heard of him they to expand the article.

Just a cursory online search yields: [[25]], [[26]], and a lot more.

Also does anyone know why User:SANTO_GOLD redirects to SANTO_GOLD? And why you cannot get to User:SANTO_GOLD's Talk page?--Feddx (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an editor called 'Santo Gold" worked on the article on his user page, then redirected it to move it to main encyclopedia space when he finished it to his satisfaction. It doesn't matter how many people remember or have heard of him, he's barely mentioned in WP:RS. Blood Circus is slightly more well known, but it has its own article and Santo's not notable independent of it. Sticky Parkin 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many people have heard of him or remember him? Did you really just write that? If there were no humans on the planet (wow wouldn't that be nice) then yes, I'd agree that the only thing that mattered was a paper trail and documentation of all of his works. But if people know who he is, isn't that what makes him notable? People write articles, record documents, update and READ Wikipedia.

As for the movie, I've never seen it, have you? I've seen his infomercials though, as did thousands of others in the 80's. I'd say Santo Gold is more notable than the movie Blood Circus. For his woeful commericals and probably inferior product more than anything else.

The article as it was written sucked to be sure. So instead of improving it, you just want to delete it. I disagree with that philosophy. People do know who he is, there is documentation as to his notability (I've not the time or resources right now to find them, but I've read a few articles over the years about him, so I know they exist). And if you know who he is.... Why shouldn't there be a decent article about this guy.

KEEP but only with a giant overhaul.--Feddx (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the film, (I'm not a film/indie film person) but I know people who have, and have it in their video collection, people who like films such as Performance. The film is mentioned more in WP:RS than Santo is. Yes I have argued in the past on the AfD for Lauren Harries that people's memories can count, however she'd also got herself mentioned in papers etc, and it counts for more on Wikipedia that WP:RS have considered someone notable. I've not heard of this bloke's infomercials, but then I'm in the UK. If it really is the bloke himself who made this article, I don't think he considered the repercussions, as for WP:NPOV the fate of his businesses/the court cases could be mentioned, and no doubt some dodgy people, or even people who lost money will change the article at some point to include that. There's grounds to delete the article out of compassion for a living person. Sticky Parkin 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at best userfy for Feddx to perform his/her overhaul. Subject/article fails the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion, has various "deliberate misinformation and/or unsourced claims" in direct violation of vandalism and WP:BLP concerns. Article as it stands doesn't belong and "beyond repair" as far as I can tell. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like an advertisement. However, I must note that at the Blood Circus article, I got into an edit war with someone who was or was employed by Santo Gold, turning it into an advertisement page and an attack page on the indie rock musician Santogold (who Rigatuso had sued for stealing his name). These are the edits made by the user (Jetrac843, note similar syntax to the person who wrote the "Santo Gold" article): here he removes most of the article to make way for an advertisement, here he moves "Blood Circus" to "SANTO GOLD", where he deletes what's left of the original article. Here, I revert the revisions made, and redirect the page back but here he reverts my reversion, and I undo his reversion. I believe that Jetrac843 and SANTO GOLD are either the same editor or someone employed by Rigatuso or possibly Rigatuso himself. I suggest a merge of whatever's salvageable to Blood Circus, redirect SANTO GOLD back to Santogold (who meets WP:MUSIC, as she is a charting musician on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart and the UK Singles Chart, and would be a likely redirect target). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redir What a mess, and I'm not even talking about the content of the nominated article. Santo gold and Santo Gold (notice the capitalization) already have long-standing redirects to Blood Circus, whereas Santogold is a wholly different subject. Was going to just do a redir myself until I noticed that Santogold thingy, so someone else can make the choice. Either that, or just Delete this, since it's utterly beyond salvage in it's current incarnation. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxfordshire towns by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article which is never updated is not useful to an encyclopedia, and can mislead users. Also the towns populations are included in all of the pages articles, so the table is a little pointless. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It might be updated, and anyway the article is a useful central location to compare populations per towns — we've got tons of them for other parts of the world. The only thing this article really needs is a source to demonstrate the date for these populations and to prove their reliability. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline? Re sourcing. Assuming that each article on towns in the list is accurate and sourced, then a source on the subject of List of Oxfordshire towns by population is not required. That said, I agree with Nyttend that a general source relative to the population statistics of Oxfordshire or England for that matter would be useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline? " Oh, how condescending... My point was that the article was last updated on 14, November 2006, so the article is outdated by almost 2 years, and was given an update tag over a month ago, and hasn't received a single useful edit since, so it does not benefit an encyclopedia in any way, which is the important thing, right? Dzhugashvili (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was merely this. Deletion debates ought to be debates related to the application of WP policies and guidelines, not on reasons ramdomly introduced by editors who have a POV. If there are errors in the article, correct them or at least call attention too them.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Policies Well, if we wish to discuss policies, then per WP:LIST#Listed items "Lists, ... are ... subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." So, without doing original research, how is this list substantiated, and how is it referenced and verified? How do I know the list of towns is complete, in particular? MadScot (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you could look that up in a secondary source... AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being listcruft at its worst. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems a harmless little article. I presume that the (uncited) source is the 2001 census, the latest to be conducted. Since none has been conducted since, there is no WP:RS on subsequent population. I expect that Oxfordshire County Council employs a statistician to make estimates of subsequent changes, but they will only be estimates. It would be useful if data could be added (in further columns) for the population in ealrier censuses. It will surprise some people that (despite housebuilding) the population of many places varies little between censuses: we are merely spread out more thinly. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Its just a table, it can be slotted into the Oxfordshire article, then improved by making it sortable, and citing the source. MortimerCat (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Clearly encyclopedic and verifiable subject matter. AndyJones (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Member of an unremarkable football (soccer) team playing in an unremarkable league. Does not meet WP:FOOTBALL George The Dragon (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to save it otherwise. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet notability criteria for WP:ATHLETE. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#G4. --Jimbo^[online] 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I have no way of knowing whether it falls under G4 as I don't know if this Daniel Lopez is the same as the previous one! George The Dragon (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not, Jimbo, not the same. You can see the version that went to AfD before here as it was userfied. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Member of an unremarkable football (soccer) team playing in an unremarkable league. Does not meet WP:FOOTBALL George The Dragon (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to save it otherwise. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Autobiographical.

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Possible conflict of interest with the page's creator User:SebastianPoloni. --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable vanity page EP 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnotable fictional weapon/item from a short set of chapters/episodes from the Inuyasha series. No real world notability. Its relevance to the story is already covered in the episode and chapter summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't need an article on a one-off plot object. --erachima talk 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete InuYashacruft. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable plot device. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 13 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. Written like an advertisement for the band. They have released two studio albums but only one of which was on raven records. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was also deleted before, but I don't know how much of it was re-creation of deleted material. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yet again. Then add copious amounts of WP:SALT. Perhaps the 6th time [27] will be the charm? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Utterly fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not again. WP:BAND failure. Would also like to recommend WP:SALT per above. --Banime (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails WP:PROF, has written one book, cited 32 times in Google Scholar (GS h-index = 3). This BLP was created by a user who has a running conflict (both on and off wiki) with User:Esterson (AN/I thread). The subject of the biography has expressed the wish that the article be deleted and claims to fail WP:N and WP:PROF "the fact remains that I have never had an academic position, have very few publications to my name, and have virtually no public profile (nor eminence)" (here).. I could imagine that someone might argue that his web site and that his work has been cited at all by Freud scholars amounts to notability, but I think these clearly fail WP:PROF based on my past experiences at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it will probably be helpful for American editors to know that "colleges" in the UK are secondary educational institutions -- the last two years of high school, basically -- rather than universities. I'm going to give this nomination some more attention tomorrow; for the moment, I've removed a large amount of tedious and unencyclopedic detail. I have also placed a COI warning for this article on User:Skoojal's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Judging by the full version, and some extensive searching, I think that by our usual standard for WP:PROF, there does not seem to be sufficient published work for notability as a researcher. With regard to general public notability, I don't see it either. Writing a long comment about a PBS program does not make one notable, even if it gets printed--no matter how true it may be. Maric's role in Einstein's work is an important scientific controversy, but his role in it is very minor. The significant contributions to that historical inquiry have been made by others. And certainly so in relation to Freud's theories. That a subject doesn't want an article is in my view not a strong reason for deletion. But in this case the subject seems correct that he isn't notable. Considering the information given above, I suggest a Rapid delete, and a courtesy blanking of the Afd DGG (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others above Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for several reasons, including lack of reliable independent sources, borderline attack and the honouring of subject preference in marginal WP:BLPs. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable washed up actor. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. George Dickerson is a poet and actor of international recognition. He's been published in The Best American Short Stories, acted in David Lynch's 1986 film Blue Velvet, and has numerous other credentials which qualify under WP:BIO guidelines. Yes, the article needs more references from additional sources. But just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the failure to meet WP:BIO guidelines but I see no need to make personal attacks, as the nominator has done. RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article makes several strong claims to notability. He was indeed a literarature critic for Time, and he had an important role in the film Blue Velvet. He also seems to have a profile in Contemporary Theater, Film, and Television that could confirm other details, although we can only get a snippet of it from Google Books. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Well known actor, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthStory
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alabamaboy08
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dayewalker
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StevenEdmondson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steven_J._Anderson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tmwns

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The movie career seems sufficient. I do however think it essential to have an additional source besides the interview. DGG (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep basically because of the personal attacks going back and forth. Keep the article but, find reliable 3rd party sources for the information and include them in the article. If the only source is going to be the interview than better to delete it now and save us all the agro of the tit for tat accusations. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other reliable sources, from Contemporary Theatre, Film, and Television and the NY Times, have now been added to this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Jasynnash2 and DGG are correct. Ignoring the drama involved, this article has passed the bar for notability. Clean it up and provide sources. Not a deletion candidate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This author has no verifiable sources outside of Schneider's page. Schneider promotes only himself, and is fond of hoaxes. This writer may be Schneider's pseudonym. A hoax. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Emanuel is a poet of international recognition. Just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable. The article has plenty of reliable sources to support this notability. I mean, this subjects papers are in the f'in Library of Congress. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI have fixed the title of the AFD discussion, as the template was not completed correctly. Horologium (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no idea who this "Schneider" is, but Emanuel is a real poet of real importance. Here's one source to start with. You'll find more under James A. Emanuel. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I once heard a radio interview between Schneider and Emanuel, and the two voices were clearly different. He’s been interviewed by NPR, I believe, and in France, he has a strong following, so I vote keep. Shukichisanzawa (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Well known writer--many independent sources, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthStory
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alabamaboy08
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dayewalker
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StevenEdmondson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steven_J._Anderson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tmwns

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete The rant above is enough to convince me that there is no substance here. There is precious little in the way of independent sourcing, and we have admission of block-evading sockpuppetry. Horologium (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking !vote; I missed Zagalejo's link when I posted, and that, along with the rationales from DGG, Jasynnash2 and Eddie.willers is enough. The sockpuppetry and screedy sniveling don't help matters, though. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you miss my comment, or is what I have provided not good enough? Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The anthology he edited is published by the well known mainstream publisher Free Press, & is in over 1500 US & Canadian libraries, according to worldCat [28]. His book on Langston Hughes is in the standard Twayne's United States authors series, indicating him to be recognized as an authority in the subject. (and is in even more libraries). an essay of his on Hughes has been reprinted in "Langston Hughes: Black genius; a critical evaluation," one of a series of standard anthologies for students published by the College Language Association, fully indicating academic acceptance as a critic. His major poetry is in more than 200 libraries, not bad for a contemporary poet. And his work is in the standard poetry anthologies The best American poetry, 2005 by Paul Muldoon and The Pushcart prize 2001 XXV : best of the small presses and also XX for 1996. Enough for notability as a poet. That his work may have been also praised by an eccentric critic is no reason for exclusion. Amazing what a search in a library catalog can determine, as compared to unsupported rhetoric. DGG (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the tit for tat. He has enough mentionhere to allow improvements to the article and its references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Sock puppetry and other assorted misdeeds aside, James Emanuel is of sufficient note to merit 10 entries at the [Library Of Congress]. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that's not a sufficient reason by itself. Writing any number of insignificant books does not make a person notable. The point here is that some of the works are significant. DGG (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. Inclusion in national libraries, such as LoC or the British Library, IMHO, is evidence of notability no matter how 'insignificant' the tome. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GL1TCHG0R3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The band is not notable enough to have an article on them. Google search on both GL1TCHG0R3 and Glitchgore do not return any meaningful results. Shovon (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proof it satisfies WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a failure to satisfy the WP:BAND guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet criteria for notability, no secondary sources cited; non neutral point of view Shelly No (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has been previously nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. It has also been previously tagged for non-neutral point of view. The original editor claims to have written it "with" the subject. It has the feel of a resume or advertisement. All external links point to the subject's web site. Subject's graduate thesis is cited as a publication. Google searches turn up some primary sources and a few local newspapers. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is claimed as his major work is present in only two libraries, according to WorldCat. DGG (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main book listed is a self-publication and the other is his portfolio. No independent sources verifying his notability found, just self-promotion websites and blogs. Could find no evidence for him being a 'social critic'. Nothing notable about his academic acheivements.Jenafalt (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for the reasons cited: non-notable subject and indications of conflict-of-interest. --Lockley (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino Krew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is full of original research and was created and maintained by the team's manager. Article passess CSD A7 and a {{prod|concern = No [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] found to [[WP:V|verify]] [[WP:NOTABLE|notability]].}} was removed without addressing the underlying reason. Fails notability guidelines. —  X  S  G  16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I correct myself: the article was created by a player on the team, and likely the son of the team's manager. —  X  S  G  16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real notability outside its own pitch. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Plays in a non-notable league, and has to claim to notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. The article contains a mission statement, but no third-party source stating "mission accomplished". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete massively non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was nominated for deletion before, but still does not assert much notability. The only sources are from a local paper. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the ref's provided, and additional ghits beyond blurbs & blogs. Arakunem^Talk 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Only three months since it was last put up for deletion (by myself). There are references, and the article was improved (just) since it was nominated last time around. The lack of any prior discussion on the talk page weakens the argument for this being removed. Olana North (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as I argued in the previous AfD). The article meets the general notability guideline standard of receiving coverage in independent reliable sources—it does not need to "assert" something beyond that. Local coverage is fine, as long as it is independent. The article by Vicky Anderson is an article entirely about this company, and there is a fair amount of verifiable info that can still be added from that. In addition to the articles in the Liverpool Daily Post, there is also coverage in the Liverpool Echo and in The Railway Magazine (see this Google News search.) Unfortunately I do not have access to the full text of the last one, so I am not sure how extensive that coverage is. Anyway, there's enough to meet WP:GNG, though it would be nice to have more. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Notability is confirmed via WP:RS, though admittedly this is a marginal case. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article passed with a keep decision only a couple of months ago and that decision should stand for now. Articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time before a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDB profile shows no named roles. PROD declined previously. RayAYang (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. As an aside, prod was removed by anonymous IP that edited the article in the same vein as the article's creator, possibly the article's subject. --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom. Possibly an autobiography, but either way does not satisfy the WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:COI violation of WP:AUTO (see diff). Even the one source given is a dead link. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely unnotable fictional character from a single film. Article is almost completely a repeat of the actual Collateral (film) article, with some OR and trivia added in. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is non-notable fancruft. The character does not appear in multiple works to warrant an article of his own. I searched Google for reliable, independent coverage of the subject in mainstream media but was unable to find anything. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - definitely an OR-fest, particularly in the "personality" section. umrguy42 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Merge to Collateral or Tom Cruise. No matter that the unsourced article is almost longer than the film, the character of "Vincent" has no notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - You can find 20 references like this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article's focus is on Tom Cruise, not his character. It does nothing to alleviate concerns of Vincent's notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respects Peregrine Fisher, SWik78 is correct. Thos articles are terrific about Cruise and his carreer and only make passing references about the Vincent character. There is nothing even closely resembling the in-depth character anysis of the Wiki article. I have modified my merge accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One-off character, article consists entirely of PLOT and OR, both of which it really shouldn't be. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format. Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment see Category:19th century years by country for many, many, many other examples (not just Mexico). Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [29] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to delete them, then you should delete everything in Category:Years_by_country. Don't just pick on Mexico; pick on the US and the UK, too. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

16-year-old dirt track race car driver. Sources are cited, but none are independent or reliable, and it doesn't appear to me that he is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A lot of apparent effort expended on the entry, but doesn't appear to be notable as verified by reliable third party sources. A Lexis-Nexis Academic database search for "Jackson Humanic" for the last 10 years (Major US and World Pubs; News Wire Services; TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts) results on zero, zilch, nada hits. Not notable yet. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article volume doesn't confer notability. You need to win more (or at least wangle a drive for a major team) before you're notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, does not have the requisite coverage needed for a biography. RFerreira (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article consists of three sentences about the conventions, and a list showing the title of each year's convention. The titles are rather generic and don't really provide any insight (as far as I can tell) into how one year's convention differed from the next. The info is unsourced. On August 8, I added notability, wikify and orphan tags; on September 3 (when there had been no improvement) I prodded; on September 8 the prod was removed and a proposal was made to merge the content into Jehovah's Witnesses or History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The merge discussion is here, but it hasn't been conclusive (although I don't think anyone has spoken in favor of merging). Propaniac (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - unless the list makes note of conventions that according to JW folklore are imagined to correlate to verses from the book of Revelation (See Revelation - It's Grand Climax at Hand), or any that were accompanied by significant events in opposition, such as bomb threats etc (if any such events exist). If kept, the article should be linked to, but not merged into Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and/or History of Jehovah's Witnesses. In any case, conventions that have no special significance should probably be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteAs it is, the article has very little, if any, utility. No context is provided to demonstrate notability. Were there to be so much as sourced paragraphs detailing each convention, the article might be of use. However, Propaniac has demonstrated that there is no effort to improve the article to a useful state. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No information, no value. LTSally (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- these convenions consist of a text prepared centrally being read to those attending. Accordingly, this article is the equivalent of a list of book titles. The article might be very useful if it exposed how the Jehovah's Witnesses change their beliefs every decade or so, so that the articles provided a paragraph summarising what was taught at each convention, something that would probably surprise many current Witnesses. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only a small number of talks at their conventions are 'script talks' that are prepared centrally to be read verbatim. It is therefore not strictly analogous to a list of books. It is a valid point though, that it might be worth retaining mention of conventions at which significant changes in doctrine have been made, though this could probably be achieved in the History article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep history, merge, and lock redirect but will accept what looks like a consensus to delete. I am the one who deprodded it in favor of a merge. I have already copied the links to the video and audio to History of Jehovah's Witnesses#External links, so there won't be any great harm done if this is deleted. If someone wants to restore this information in a well-sourced manner in the appropriate section of the appropriate article, they can probably find what they need in official publications. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal.[30] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I put up a speedy deletion notice before for lack of context but someone took it down. I see he put up an expansion tag, but I think that it's reasonable to expect that anyone who decides to post an article should at the very least be prepared to have a sentence that explains what the topic is. Three hours after its creation this article still lacks any explanation of what vaporized hydrogen peroxide is, and has nothing more to say about than that it's become more popular for some particular purpose than it used to be. Largo Plazo (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "He" (me!) didn't put up an expansion tag, he merely removed the speedy (according to policy, as a non-concerned editor). The original author had put the hangon up (again, according to policy). Yet again we see an over-hasty attempt to delete a brand new (3 minutes old!) article on an interesting topic, simply because the deletionist can't wait for an editor to finish working on it. I'd also note (entirely without prejudice) that the creator is a wikinewbie who is likely to be unaware of the risks to new articles, and of the necessity of working on them out of main article space first to guard againt this risk. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an interesting topic and I look forward to the creator expanding the article. I have no intention of expanding it myself immediately, as I'd regard that as a rude intrusion onto someone else's efforts. However if nothing happens before the 5 day Clock o'Doom expires and this article has to be deleted in a hurry lest the world ends, then I'll expand it to a defensible state at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting and notable topic. Premature atttempt to delete an article during creation, when the AfD proposer speedied it after 3 minutes. Obviously needs expansion, but I have every faith that the creator intends to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quick google search returns many references to VHP as a new method of sterilization of large volume enclosures, including its ability to disinfect anthrax spores from buildings. Not the best start to the article, but that's reason to improve it, given the available sources. Arakunem^Talk 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion proposed. If one wants to get in to content discussions, then a merge to hydrogen peroxide could be appropriate. The creator added a sentence to Hydrogen peroxide#Industrial applications which could be improved and Vaporized hydrogen peroxide redirected there or, if there is lots to say, this article can be expanded as far as she or anyone else wants. Its clearly a very common application of hydrogen peroxide and I believe this was rushed and a tad bitey. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly uncommon application of hydrogen peroxide, hence interesting as it's obviously a rapidly growing field of application. As the context of its use is currently topical, then I see this as entirely justified as a separate article (as is High Test Peroxide, for similar reasons). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess our definitions of common-place differ. There's a large amount of literature going back to at least the early nineties on it. Nonetheless, we agree its clearly notable and worthy of an article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to distinguish between a topic worth of an article and an article that ought to be on Wikipedia. I could put up all kinds of articles on noteworthy topics but with inappropriate content, and I would expect the result to be deletion until such time as someone comes back and recreates them with appropriate content. If I hadn't posted these articles, life would go on until someone else created them (or I created them with real content); likewise, no harm is caused by deleting the articles until someone has good content for them. (Recreating an article isn't a hardship!) Newbies can be given helpful information such as WP:First article that will help them prepare some decent starter content that they can come back with to try again. (I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit.) Meanwhile, this keeps Wikipedia clear of all the useless articles that people don't come back to flesh out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't offer any help to the new article creator, did you? Instead you worked pretty hard to delete their first article, with all possible haste. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the acknowledgment "I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit" not clear? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe present article is less than an adequate encyclopedic treatment, looking at only one very specific use of the product and references are lacking. Previous commentors claim there are references about this substance and its uses. Please, someone with knowedge of chemistry or of sterilization procedures, go right ahead and improve the article. As it stands, I would recommend a merge to Hydrogen peroxide as a subsection until there is sufficient content to justify an article. As for the AFD, when the topic is clearly not a hoax or vandalism or nonsense, as a Google search would show [31] in 10 seconds, [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , or a Google News Archive search [38] , or a Google Book Search [39] , tagging the article as being in need of expansion is a better course than nominating it for deletion. Three hours is hardly an extreme duration for leaving a new stub article in Wikipedia. Some drawbacks of the process are discussed at[40]. One book which gives more than a snippet view and has substantial discussion is [41]. If someone familiar with the area would add these or equivalnet refs and make the coverage more comprehensive it could be a fine article. Edison (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Go right ahead and improve it". I think we've bitten the creator quite enough for one day. What's the hurry? Let them get on with it. Is Wikipedia in some way damaged by the existence of a non-controversial, appropriate, but unfinished article that clearly has a large audience alredy watching it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just get rid of speedy deletion altogether for no content, little or no context, no evidence given of notability, and blatant advertising, on the grounds that someone will come along and fix them in a trice? There's a good reason for these provisions. As I said earlier, it is hardly too much to ask for it to have occurred to the person creating an article to have something to say to define the topic and establish context; is a person damaged by that expectation? And now, six hours later, this article's author, the individual who you were confident was just on the verge of providing all this context, is nowhere to be seen. So I don't think it was a matter of me cutting him off before he'd had three minutes to fix the problem on his own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I doubt we'll ever see the article's creator ever again. After all, if this sort of reception doesn't discourage them, I don't know what would. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, on the issue of contacting the person and giving a fair chance first. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vaporize What? I don't know how this could be improved. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a premature deletion nomination. Since when do we delete an article not finished the same day? Edison has provided sufficient references, so the article is a valid stub, and not likely to be deleted when finished. The value of a merge can be later discussed on the talk page after the article is written. I suggest the nom withdraw this, as a sign of AGF in new editors. (I note that when the speedy was placed, the author had a totally irrelevant reference, apparently a mistaken cut and paste--that does go far to justify the original doubt about it; but it was quickly corrected to an appropriate ref.). DGG (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been intrigued by the number of people whose response is directed at something other than the basis originally given for the deletion request. It was never a question of whether the article was finished. It was a question of whether the article fulfills the reasonably established minimum purpose of having article, which is to say what its topic is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete - I don't really see need for this to have its own article, unless there is a lot more detail to go into, and this use for hydrogen peroxide is already mentioned under industrial uses in the main article on it, though seriously, isn't noming the article only 3 minutes after its creation a little much? 204.83.242.149 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in) Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT :: May I take it, from this discussion, that it would now be within Wiki-process to block-nominate articles before they are created, on the basis that we either do not like the subject, or do not think it worthy of Wiki-ing ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What i was meaning was "in my (non-chemist) opinion, there is not likely enough to this topic to warrant its own article and it should go in the main article" and added "don't you think you're nominating this in an awful hurry?"Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Grandmartin11, I don't think that's what they meant (or far stronger than they meant anyway). This is a notable topic, but I only know that from outside knowledge, not from the current article. As it stands, it doesn't make an adequate case for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The topic is probably notable and may support an article-length treatment of its own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hydrogen peroxide. The substance in gas phase is not really different in how it behaves in solution. Anything that is unique about this phase can probably be described in a handful of sentences. --Polaron | Talk 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went and expanded the article to establish notability. Please re-evaluate this AfD. BTW, for Andy: I didn't want to wait the 5 days, as I think it would be a nice welcome to the original author to get a DYK credit for creating the article. Thoughts? Arakunem^Talk 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Offer to withdraw motion The article's great now. Thanks, Arakunem. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hydrogen peroxide article is long as it is. Narayanese (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD is not cleanup. And even the first version of the article provided useful information about what VHP is and what it is used for. --Itub (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SOURCES, has no real-world context and fails WP:OR / WP:SYN -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - staggeringly minor feature of notable fictional universe. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and hardly verifiable. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --> WP:N and WP:SOURCES. abf /talk to me/ 16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable minor fictional creatures. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very minor feature of fictional universe. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

promotional article about non-notable group which has been speedied repeated for a number of reaons A7 and G11 (off the top of my head) but, is being constantly recreated without addressing the issues. Although, I consider this a procedural nom I'm "voting" speedy delete for either of the above reasons and add a healthy dose of salt. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - non-notable supporters group, fails CSD A7 CultureDrone (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and protect per nom. Mystache (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as empty article. ... discospinster _talk 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for speedy G3, removed by another user, so I'm bringing to AfD. Incoherent nonsense and obvious vandalism. gnfnrf (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the article was deleted as I created the AfD, so Twinkle recreated the article with just the AfD notice. This is awkward. gnfnrf (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete current article for content per my tag then salt against recreation. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Empty article. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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