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

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

Marjorie Rendell

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

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

• Delete Keep With References No external links or notability. I'd like to see the proper references Mrmcdonnell ( talk) 03:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep- as both a federal judge, and the wife of PA's Governor, third party sources weren't exactly hard to find: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Plus there's plenty more out there. Umbralcorax ( talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Speedy keep members of US federal District courts are notable. (FWIW, though, wife of a governor is not by itself notable). DGG ( talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

comment- I know its not by itself notable, but it certainly makes notability easier to prove. Umbralcorax ( talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It looks like Umbralcorax has entered good references in this discussion, which makes this person notable. ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 4 December 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 Rickrolling. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Mcroll'd

Mcroll'd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete or Merge with Rickroll - Non notable internet parody. However, if reliable sources are found, I'll be willing to change my !vote. X clamation point 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete lol internet. JuJube ( talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• I've given up, let it down, run around, and deserted this article (Delete) (sorry, I couldn't resist.) Umbralcorax ( talk) 04:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • AHHHH Someone Rickrolled this AfD. SYSS Mouse ( talk) 02:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete The rickroll is an organic outgrowth and should not be used or abused by those evil corporate overloads (OK, McDonald's probably doesn't have anything to do with this). Oh, it's just plain unnotable (and holy crap is it annoying!). Nate • ( chatter) 06:54, 4 December 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. There's nothing here that would be mergeable; anyone who feels that it'd be a good search term can feel free to redirect. Stifle ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Paul Green (property developer)

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

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

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E and the general notability guidelines for people. Dendodge Talk ^Contribs 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect is obvious, but why do you think it should be deleted first? - Mgm| ^(talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BLP1E, isn't a likely search term, so a redirect would be pointless. RMHED ( talk) 00:51, 4 December 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. Sources exist for the article, if they are reliable or not is something that should be discussed in the talk page. If these sources aren't, then it can be rediscussed in a few months. I'm not going to check if the sources are reliable or not, but given a lack of rebuttal it's a no consensus. I played it, i heard of it, isn't a reason for keeping. Secret ^account 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Australian handball

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

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

• Delete : You just beat me to it with the nomination. Way too much Original Research here. dramatic ( talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. dramatic ( talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Just a list of rules, with no proof that is is professionally practised by anyone. WP:MADEUP seems to apply. Dendodge Talk ^Contribs 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I attended 15 different schools between prep and Grade 12 (don't ask why...) and this was played in every single one of the Australian ones, but not the British one. It is a ubiquitous Australian game. The article needs sourcing, not deletion. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sourcing with what? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• See my comments below. Hpfan9374 ( talk) 09:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect/smerge to Four square, of which this is clearly a variety. Grutness... wha? 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete There's no doubt it exists as an informal game played in one form or another by many over the years. But this is a tough one. I just have strong doubts that it can be properly sourced. If not, I don't know how you could distinguish between fact and fiction. Murtoa ( talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect to Four square regional#Australian regional rules. WP:MADEUP doesn't apply to this game, which has been a common playground game going back at least several decades within my memory and that of my partner (experience from opposite ends of NZ). Sourcing the Australasian variant might be difficult but I don't think it would be impossible. An enquiry on the Australian/New Zealand Wikipedian noticeboards may help.- gadfium 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It seems to be called "Square Ball" or "Four Square" in New Zealand, and there a reference to it in Children's Games with Things by Iona Archibald Opie, Iona Opie and Peter Opie (not available online), and in http://www.sporttaranaki.org.nz/content/45/Traditional_Playground_games.pdf.- gadfium 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, verifiable game that has long since established at least regional notability in two of some of the most prominent anglophone nations on Earth. This is hardly "a" school game in Australia, this is "the" school game in Australia. Not a single school kid will not have played at this at one point or another during their lives. + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 08:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It makes no difference if you get a thousand affidavits from Australians who have played it, without reliable sources you can't put stuff in Wikipedia. dramatic ( talk) 09:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I am aware of that (it is one of our pillars, after all). I was noting it is an influential part of people's lives and as such I am positive there are a number of sources discussing it. + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 10:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Well unless we find those references, there seems to be nothing much to differentiate it from Four Square (which is what I played at school) other than the size of the ball, in which case there is no need for this article. And Four square has at least some sources. (I was surprised to see that it has a professional league, but then there is probably a professional league for tiddly winks somewhere.) dramatic ( talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Touché. I retain my keep vote, per Hpfan9374's excellent points. + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Firstly, TenPoundHammer, I understand why you would nominate it for deletion, I'll try to address your concerns.
  
  • "unofficial schoolyard game" - But what is an official schoolyard game? Australian handball could also be classified as a street game.
    
  • "no actual sources" - There is one source clearly listed on the bottom of the article, a news article in the first edition of Excitement Machine Magazine written by Tristan Mahoney and Matt Salleh, that is accessible here. Furthermore, I have recently seen a Logie Award-winning, Australian television mockumentary series, distributed internationally, Summer Heights High which features Australian handball. This could be the primary focus of an "Impact on popular culture" section, for example. However, I will admit, there aren't many online references. I will go to the library to find some written materials at a later date.
  • "Nothing but a huge list of rules" - Agreed. The article needs to be completely rewritten, not deleted, with template, cleanup-rewrite and categorized into category Wikipedia articles needing rewrite.
  • "no established notability or history" - Notability will come as sources with reliable sources. The sport was 2007 TV Fugly Award Nominee for "New “Sports” to broadcast on TV". The Courier-Mail published a story Fun police go too far in which they received reports that schools are banning students from playing handball, among performing other schoolyard activities. This relates to your first concern "unofficial schoolyard game" in which The Courier-Mail has considered it a schoolyard game or activity. In 2003 and half a decade later in 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald made reference to Australian handball in two news articles, Top of the class and Kids who care. They stated that the game as a new craze in 2003, and in 2008 stated that students were continuing to play Australian handball. This asserts and references a half-decade of history, however there are original research claims that suggest the game has been in existence for at least two decades. Diabetes South Australia has ranked Australian handball fourth in their Top 5 School Yard Games, here. The game has also inspired a short story, My Almost Deadly Handball Experience, written by Mike W of Temple Christian College. Importantly the South Australian Government has issued a document, Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Social Development, in which the author cites Australian handball as a method of fostering social competencies in young children. Aswell, Australian handball has inspired artworks, with the names of various Australian handball moves, Present Gift, Death Rally, Body Lob and Does’nt Make It, Does’nt Count being used as titles of art work at The Kings Artist Run Initiative. Further references, Ande Bunbury Architects, Museum of Victoria Play & Folklore, Jindalee State School Wish List, Coomoora Primary School Newsletter #5108 and Learning Sequence.

In conclusion, pending a "kept" decision, I will completely change the articles structure to comply with other schoolyard games, verify all claims with reliable references and remove all original research, after a visit to the library. Thanks! Hpfan9374 ( talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The key thing would be that you will have to demonstrate that it is a completely different game from Four square (given that there are Australian regional rules for four square documented). That looks unlikely, comparing the articles. If handball is merely an Australian name for Four square, then this article needs to be deleted and replaced with a redirect, and the Four square article needs to mention the localised name. dramatic ( talk) 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Diabetes South Australia states that:

[Handball is] either played against a wall (for two players) or in 4 squares (4 players). Bounce the ball to the wall or to one of the 4 squares and back again. Use points for the wall and for 4 squares players shift from King, Queen, Jack and Joker.

Although brief, it states that the game uses positions "King, Queen, Jack and Joker", unlike four square and that the player must bounce the ball to their square, then an "one of the 4 squares and back again". In four square, the player do not bounce the ball to their square first, and instead directly 'hit' the ball into one of the other three squares. I believe their is written material of the rules in playground and schoolyard games books at my library, I will check it out in the near future. Cheers! Hpfan9374 ( talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 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 Battle Trolls. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Bulls-Eye Troll

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Battle Trolls. They do seem to exist, but they're not independently notable of the line. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect, Manitobamountie ( talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per TPH. -- Finngall ^talk 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect is fine with me, if someone wants to be bold. Would have done it myself instead of bringing to AfD if I'd known there was a good target.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 6 December 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 Four square. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

New Zealand Handball

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Redirect to Australian handball. No content worth preserving.- gadfium 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm about to start an AFD for that, too :-) dramatic ( talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, please don't start an AFD for four square :) Mandsford ( talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Redirect to Four square or Four square regional#Australian regional rules in that case.- gadfium 05:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable schoolyard game, no sources to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Four square, of which this is clearly a variety (it's usually called four square here in NZ in fact - I've never heard it called anything else). Grutness... wha? 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Four square - I've played this in several parts of New Zealand with various age groups and never heard it called anything other than four square - even when there are eight or 12 squares. At the Otago high school I went to "handball" was synonymous with fives. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 22:18, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Kenworth Truck T908

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

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

• Is this the name of an actual truck model? If it is, it might be a possible redirect candidate. - Mgm| ^(talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The is basically copyvio from Kenworth's literature. I can match whole paragraphs from the Kenworth's company history pages ( [7] and [8]). • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• delete I am not sure that we need articles on truck models, but if it is COPY-VIO it should be speedy delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:54, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Justice Lords

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

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

• Keep They appear to be signicant characters that have been developed into a storyline. They've been made into toys. I think it's probably best to include them in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The characters have been made into toys and contrary to the other nominations of today, this article has sources. If need be it can be stubbified to delete unsourced material, that would still leave a notable or mergeable lead. The title would be a useful redirect. - Mgm| ^(talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hundreds of thousands of characters have toys made after them, and I'm sure that more minor characters from this series also have them. How do these toys establish notability any more than any other toy of a non-notable character? The article doesn't have sources (which were added after the nomination, just to clarify); it has two links, one confirming the existence of toys, and and another providing an in-universe description, which is basically an external links section. If real critical reception is provided, that is one thing, but to base an entire article on the existence of a few toys is just pointless. TTN ( talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Why would being added after a nomination invalidate sources? Artw ( talk) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• TTN is saying that since the links were added afterwards, TTN cannot be held responsible for not noticing them. Jay32183 ( talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep If there are references to the toys to show they;re notable, so are the characters. It seems perfectly reasonable to be t have as many articles on notable toys , or notable characters, as we need. DGG ( talk) 14:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There's no significant coverage. Verifiable existence and notability are not the same thing. Jay32183 ( talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - in addition to the story they appeared in they form a part of the Cadmus Project storyline. Artw ( talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • What does that have to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Jay32183 ( talk) 01:59, 6 December 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 Batman: The Animated Series . MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Tygrus

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

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

• Delete Unless someone can provide some sourcing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect. A quick Google search would make the name of the voice actor verifiable and it is a reasonable search term to redirect from.- Mgm| ^(talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Merges don't have to be full merges, you know... - Mgm| ^(talk) 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the episode in which he is made, which seems to be the only significant place in the series where he appears. If he's used more generally, then a combination article would be an more appropriate place & it should be a merge. I consider it an abuse of deletion process to nominatefor deletion articles which can be redirected or merged. DGG ( talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ultimen

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

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

• Weak delete Unless someone can source some of this. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect reasonable search term.- Mgm| ^(talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Does not explain why the article shouldn't be deleted. Redirects do not need an edit history for copyright reasons, and can be created after an article is deleted. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Keep as no explanation is given why redirect or merge is unsuitable--those matters should be considered elsewhere. DGG ( talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Presenting a reason to delete is a reason not to merge, and not discussing a merge is not a reason to keep. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing there than WP:PLOT and Trivia. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• KEEP They were a re-occuring group on the show. They also serve as self-referential humor from the creators of DC. I still don't understand why anyone thinks that you'd be making Wikipedia better by removing articles. This isn't spam, offensive, or inaccurate. If Wikipedia can have dozens of Super Mario enemies, then why not the Ultimen? == Chad78 ( talk) 17:17 5 December 2008 (CST)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The argument for deletion is that there is little supporting material for the article. Well, it is hard to reference a copyrighted television show online. The article about otherstuffexists says the argument may or may not be valid. How about the myriad of fictional cartoon characters that are a part of wikipedia that do not exist outside of their shows of origin? That was the original reason for deletion. We should then delete the Smurfs, including Papa Smurf, Smurfette, Brainy Smurf... BTW, I'm not calling for their deletions. I have yet to see why ever deleting articles that are not: Spam, offensive, or inaccurate could ever help make Wikipedia better. chad78 ( talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The lack of sources providing real world context, truth is not the basis for inclusion, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:PLOT. Copyright status has no effect on the availability of sources. We have featured articles on fictional characters, see Jason Vorhees. Prehaps we should delete the articles on individual Smurfs. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid; it doesn't establish a basis for keeping or deleting. Jay32183 ( talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 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. Secret ^account 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Static Shock through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
• "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
• "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
• "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

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

• Keep and consider about redirect on the article talk page. I note that real world information is present. 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and consider a merge on the relevant talk page. It's an abuse of deletion process to propose an article for deletion which can be merged, at least without saying why it it shouldnt be merged or redirected. Perhaps the last sentence of the nom says that, but I can't tell what it means. . DGG ( talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There are no sources, it can't be merged. No matter how reasonable the redirect is, it is not a reason to preserve the history of content we're getting rid of. We can, and should, delete the article then make a redirect. Jay32183 ( talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • There are sources, and they are mentioned in the article. The episodes, "Stringer", "Where the Rubber Meets the Road", "They're Playing My Song (Season one)", and "Bad Stretch" are all cited in the article, as well as the published comic Static #34. DHowell ( talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
      • None of which are secondary sources. Jay32183 ( talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge, and discuss which to do on the relevant talk pages. Most of the content here is verifiable, whether or not it is notable. DHowell ( talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If it isn't notable then "keep" isn't an option. If you're going to argue to keep an article that's been brought up on notability issues, you need to show that it is notable. Jay32183 ( talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not notable enough. Ryan4314 ( talk) 05:34, 8 December 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 Static Shock. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Meta-Breed

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Static Shock through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I continue to like to hear what he himself meant by it; I see no mention of splitting or summary style in that phrase. What you say, however, may be on some occasions a valid argument about preemptive splitting--and, like discussions to merge, a subject for talk page discussion. DGG ( talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Heather Sharfeddin

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

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

• Weak keep per [9] and notices in Publisher's Weekly. Minimally notable. JJL ( talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No one is disputing the fact that Heather Sharfeddin authored some books which are for sale on Amazon. However, that is not a valid notability criteria according to WP:CREATIVE. Dlabtot ( talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW's Public Sock ( talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Keep – Regretfully - Based on the fact that I did find some very glowing reviews on several of her books and a few in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [10]. Which, for me makes the author acceptable under notability inclusion for authors. Likewise, I hope that her next book, scheduled for 2009 will make the best sellers list and we will read about Ms. Sharfeddin, here on Wikipedia. Best of luck to her. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I followed your link, but I couldn't find the " in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources " that you refer to - no doubt my mistake. Perhaps you could help out and add them to the article. BTW, re your edit summary, this is not a vote. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reply - The Capital Press interview and Reed Business Information piece are articles about the author, more so than the book. I know they are pay sites, so most editors do not have access. However, in the synopsis of the pieces, you can gather the tone of the article. Regarding vote versus opinion (in my edit summary), you are absolutely right and I misspoke. I give you full permission to Slap me with a wet trout. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I see some notability here, not much (per our guidelines), but some. The review suggests she's staking out new ground in a western themed genre, and she's had a couple of books. I lean towards keeping the author as I think it helps the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 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 Static Shock. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Talon (Static Shock)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Static Shock through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete If someone digs up sources and prunes let me know. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia:Immediatism is not a valid reason for deletion. The AFD page says so quite clearly. A reasonable effort should be made to show sources do not exist before nominating something for deletion. - Mgm| ^(talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
• "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
• "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
• "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

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

• Keep same reasons as for all the similar nomination--redirect and merge are considered elsewhere. A deletion nomination for something potentially mergable or redirectable without explaining or even asserting the inappropriateness of such is an abuse of deletion process, regardless of the subject. DGG ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 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. Deiz talk 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

How to vote in Broward County

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

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

• Speedy Delete Fails so many policies and guidelines it's not funny. dramatic ( talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Seriously man, you can just change the tag to a speedy delete, this is obviously not encyclopedic.
• Strong delete — (edit conflict) Wikipedia is not a how-to. The instructor of this class should know better than have his/her students write their papers and place them here. Wikipedia does approve of school projects, but I am thinking this is clearly not one of them. MuZemike ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete or possibly transwiki to Wikiversity. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 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) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Dee-Dee

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

This character article does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
• "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
• "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
• "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

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

• Delete DO NOT REDIRECT to Batman Beyond. Clearly Dee Dee Ramone is a more likely choice for a destination. 76.66.194.58 ( talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and consider a merge or a redirect at the appropriate place, which is not AfD. If there's a problem about multiple places where theredirect would be appropriate, a disam page is the solution. This should not have been brought here. DGG ( talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: (no redirect) Not notable enough. Ryan4314 ( talk) 05:32, 8 December 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 Batman Beyond. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Curaré (Batman Beyond)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
• "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
• "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
• "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

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

• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and consider a merge. I've said what I think about using deletion nominations for this purpose above. DGG ( talk) 14:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Cruft & OR Ryan4314 ( talk) 17:52, 6 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Co-Motion Cycles

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

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

• Keep I think the company is worth a stub. I added a link to where they link all their reviews and such. It's a relatively distinctive product and I think they're notable within the cycling world. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep I wrote the (admittedly) short article. I have no connection with the company or their products or their employees. I simply came across them when shopping for a new bicycle. I don't think the article reads like a press release as it stands. Co-motion is fairly notable in tandem circles. Wikipedia's article on tandem bicycles lists Co-Motion in its list of manufacturers. A Co-motion tandem has been ridden in the Race Across America (RAAM). I don't know how many bikes they sell annually, nor is this a statistic that's likely to be available from a privately-held corporation; in any case, annual sales doesn't seem to be a criteria for notability. Simplem ( talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- It is unfortunate that the article does not indicate the scale of the company's operations, to show whether it is a notable or NN company. For the moment I would suggest keeping and tagging as a stub. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:57, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Burke's Postulate

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

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

• Delete - the article does make some sense, but only by playing with semantics. There's no real mathematical or physical truth to be found here. It relies on the conceptual difficulties with the mathematical concept of infinity. The sign-off appears to violate the GFDL, by the way. It's something made up one day. There is an element of hoaxery (that the Large Hadron Collider is going to test this theory, etc). - Richard Cavell ( talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Looks like the author forgot to activate his reference list. I just did, for him, and the article looks to be in-line cited – and well referenced. Over my head yes, but I believed overlooked by nominator before bringing here. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't notice the references, having not looked at the page source, but now that I have seen them, it doesn't change my !vote. He's citing certain elements of his argument correctly, but the essential parts of 'Burke's postulate' are entirely original research or something made up one day, or just plain bollocks. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete- this is a textbook example of synthesis: it is the author's original research that draws conclusions from sources that do not advance those conclusions themselves. No sources exist that discuss this nebulous "postulate" itself. Reyk _YO! 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete I postulate that there is a finite probability that user:Danny B 10 is the said Daniel J. Burke, who is the last person who should be writing about this concept. dramatic ( talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I further hypothesize that the value of this probability is exactly 1. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • <bait>You can't say that it's 1, though it's very high. It might be as high as 0.999.... - Richard Cavell ( talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)</bait> reply
• Delete Obviously non-notable. - Atmoz ( talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete — I have studied math for many, many years, and I know there is no such proposition. Clearly something madeup judging from the lack of verifiability. MuZemike ( talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Strangely enough, "Burke's Postulate" calls up several different words of wisdom by guys named "Burke" [11], but the most famous is from Edmund Burke, who was the one who said "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Note to "Danny B" -- get published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, and you might not have to go through this type of peer review. Mandsford ( talk) 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete – non-notable; does not make sense from a mathematical point of view. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  -- Lambiam 17:41, 4 December 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 Galactik Football - for the time being. A merge to a List of characters in Galactik Football would not be unreasonable, but the articles as they stand are generally completely unsourced and fail WP:N and WP:V (not to mention WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT). Black Kite 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ahito (Galactik Football)

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

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

• I am also nominating the following related pages:

D'Jok (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mei (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Micro-Ice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rocket (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sinedd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Snow Kids (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thran (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tia (Galactik Football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Redirect to a list of characters and merge heavily reduced information (which would take care of referencing issues). There's enough reliable sources on any named fictional universe if you bother looking it up. I'll cite the main AFD page:

• "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
• "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered."
• "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
• "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."

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

• Merge all If you're saying that one or more of the articles contains sources, and that the nominator is incorrect in saying otherwise, you're welcome to point out which articles have sources. On the other hand, if you're saying that nominators have an obligation to source someone else's article, then let me be the first to say that "No, they don't." Mandsford ( talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • They don't, but they do have to establish the article is unsalvagable or give someone else the chance to fix it without forcing a deadline. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Generally, if it's evident that someone is making a good faith effort to fix things, the debate stays open longer. A closing admin has the discretion to hold off on a ruling. This is particularly true in cases where the today's article is noticeably different from the one that was nominated, because the reasons originally given may no longer apply. I'm all in favor of saying "wait" (or in '08, saying "oh, wait!") when someone is trying to make things better. Mandsford ( talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep and consider merging if the notability is borderline for the individual characters, as would seem likely, but this is not the place to discuss merges. One should not assert something cannot be referenced or improved without giving some basis for that. I note we do not delete for unsourced, just unsourcable, so saying something currently has no sources for notability is not a reason to delete. DGG ( talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. Original research, plain and simple. Other than The Snow Kids, none of these articles has any sources at all, and those on the Snow Kids fail WP:RS easily. It is for those seeking content to be included to provide sources and verify it, not for those seeking it to be deleted to prove that none exist. See WP:BURDEN. Stifle ( talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 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: darthsanddroids.net and irregularwebcomic.net are now reliable sources and can be cited as references? Absolutely not. It looks as though this AfD nomination was canvassed heavily, so the number of keeps to deletes must be weighed appropriately. There simply aren't enough reliable sources and external coverage that establish notability for inclusion here. Passing references to the site only establish its existence on the Web, they don't establish that it's a notable place. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

TV Tropes Wiki

{{ notavote}}

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

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

• Delete - No WP:RS that are non-trivial found. I cannot see how this survived its previous nomination. Sorry, but the sources just don't confer notability, and the New York Times article mentioned in the previous AfD links to it (which doesn't mean much). DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Give it time. Their influence will spread. ^[1] Cyberchao X 2:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no qualms against recreation then, when this site becomes notable and passes WP:WEB. DARTH PANDA ^duel 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now. If what Cyberchao says is true, eventually secondary sources will be found, but there just ain't any at the moment. JuJube ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have found repeated references to it as an educational resource, e.g. Hekman Library. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's only a trivial mention though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is heavily reminiscent of the webcomic deletions--web material is on the web and referenced by other things on the web. Web material is only rarely referenced outside the web. The fact that it's mentioned in more than one non-web source at all could only happen if it's pretty darn notable; it's just that the web notability guidelines are broken.

Also, it has 14316 pages (or 14685 non-discussion pages in the Main namespace only as of June). It really belongs on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis ; the only reason it's not there is that nobody put it in. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• WP:BIG doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, as per above -- Glass Star ( talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as per above -- Vignettelante ( talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as per above. And remember, kids - just say "No" to "Notability". Lee M ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Most people would beg to differ with you. Almost everyone follows WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• To that I say, WP:Citation needed. I think a lot of the "Keep" arguments here are quite specious, but fair's fair. I know of nothing that would establish such a strong claim. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as above. How many web-notable sites are referenced outside the web? The minority, I'd wager. Heliomance ( talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Even so, it does not pass WP:WEB which specifically asks for non-trivial mentions in non-trivial work. It doesn't matter where this material exists; it's fine as the material exists. I can see no evidence of this fact. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep with reference to the linking in the NYT's Blog, [12] SamuelRiv ( talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's a reporter's blog, not of the NYT itself. And mere linking doesn't establish anything, let alone notability. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Mixed. I can't find any coverage of TV Tropes itself in reliable sources. Links to, yes, but not coverage. "Lots of sites link to it" doesn't matter; popularity is not notability. Anything we do ourselves to justify it would be original research. As WP:WEB says, articles need to do more "describe the nature, appearance or services" of a site. That said, it does seem to fall entirely within that which is allowed by WP:STUB. What's there is well-written and cited; the page is on the right track. WP:STUB and WP:N have always had a dynamic tension with each other; I don't see it as reasonable to consider either in isolation. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. If the multiple references from other web sites are not enough, the sole fact that it's referenced from outside the web should be. Medinoc ( talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Not true at all. Please take a look at the WP:WEB criteria for notability of website articles. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep As noted, it has been referenced by webcomics which are themselves considered notable. Furthermore, the NYT is a respected mainstream publication, surely that alone should be enough (and of course a similar argument could be made for its mention in the Lost boxset)? While it is only linked to, rather than being reported on, shouldn't the fact that its being cited as a source itself be an indication that its notable? A decent text book tends to be quoted as much as its reviewed if you'll excuse a metaphor.-- Bisected8 ( talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Not really. WP:WEB stipulates that "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores" doesn't count. The mentions that you note are largely a mix of the four, making all of these mentions "trivial" and therefore not notable. The issue is not that it should be mentioned; there needs to exist an article in a non-trivial reliable source that talks solely about the site, and that simply does not exist. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's a widespanning Wikia-type thing. JAF1970 ( talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Widespanning? WP:BIG with a good dose of vagueness. There seems to be a good deal of WP:ILIKEIT comments here combined with former/current users of this wiki, which we need to avoid. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is referenced by a lot of people as being a reliable source for analyzing the workings of fiction. It can be used as a helpful source (as one teacher did) and should therefore stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.88.90 ( talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is a useful site, as the above poster said, and is referenced by numerous blogs and other sites. This article is in need of improvement and expansion, of course, but it is a valuable resource nonetheless. [ Here's] a [ couple] good references. ATD ( talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A reasonably medium profile site; here's a minor mention in a Belfast newspaper. In addition, the second Google result for "Mary Sue" (after our own entry on the subject) is the TVTropes wiki entry on the subject. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 18:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closing admin - The keep votes seem to almost uniformly fail wp:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I would hope the admins know how to do their job. But you shouldn't forget that WP:ATA is an essay with unclear consensus status. It gets linked all the time, but as has been said on this very page, links do not establish anything. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lotta keeps there, but not one of them hints at it passing WP:WEB. I can't find any reliable sources. gnfnrf ( talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I would like to argue this from the perspective of looking at the TV Tropes Wiki as a site similar to Snopes. It does not receive much media exposure since its nature is not one that attracts the attention of "general media" (with the exception of the New York Times mention). Usefulness alone is not a good reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aglets are useful, but their inclusion in Wikipedia is based on them being notable information to a specific group. So this leads to the question, to who or whom should a source of information be notable to that its inclusion in Wikipedia be relevant. I firmly believe that Notability should define article inclusion in Wikipedia, and as a long time user of Wikipedia I have attempted to guage all my edits by this guideline. Analyzing this from my own subjective perspective I believe enough sources which are themselves considered notable enough for inclusion of Wikipedia have found TV Tropes worthy of interest or reference that I find its inclusion warranted. I would like to point out that constant interest in the site should be demonstrated, because notability is a time dependent phenomenon - in the future, TV Tropes may no longer be as notable. Future deletion is not out of the question, but I believe it is unreasonable to remove this entry at this point in time. Full Disclosure: I am am an active contributor to TVTropes and to Wikipedia. Ctrl build ( talk) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Notability, as it is defined by WP:N, is explicitly not time-dependent. I think you are confusing "popularity" with "notability". On WP, "notability" is basically whether a subject itself has received significant coverage. In other words, are there news/magazine articles, books, encyclopedia entries, documentaries, etc., about TV Tropes itself? Not links to or references to TVT, but actually about TV Tropes. Notability is about coverage, not use. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The Time magazine blog "Nerd World" references TV Tropes directly. [13] -- 65.184.44.109 ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I agree with many of the above points, and especially with Ctrl build's analysis. But I cannot help but feel that this discussion contains a lot of policy quoting without substantive discussion to back it up. I also find it odd that our policy is structured in such a way that web references don't count for much. Wikipedia itself references TVTropes [14], and while I'm sure there is some policy regarding this, I find it ancillary to the fact that TVTropes has print references comparable to other sites whose articles we keep. Magicallydajesus ( talk) 09:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Now that you pointed out a reference by Wikipedia of TVTropes, I found a list of 147 references of this type [15]. I understand that the Notability policy does not recognize self reference as a defense, but it does point to it being considered a substantive source by contributors. Ctrl build ( talk) 17:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: If being trivial is an issue, then I must direct you to the hundreds of minor-issue comic characters this wiki has accrued. Being mentioned in newspapers and webcomics (which all have pages here) alone makes the TVTW more notable than Tagak the Leopard Lord. Andraxx ( talk) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Thanks for letting me know. I've nominated him for deletion. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It would appear most of the people arguing "keep" are saying that TVT should be kept because lots of sites (including Wikipedia) link to it as a reference. That's not mentioned anywhere in WP:N that I can find. WP:N wants significant coverage of the thing itself. Lots of links to TVT is not coverage of TVT itself. For example, a newspaper article about TVT would be good. (An article which mentions TVT in passing would not.) If links are the only thing people come up with, the result is sure to be deletion. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I should remind that the question is neither TVT as a reliable source for WK nor WK acknowledging TVT and the work of its contributor but rather does this article have enough strong references to back it. -- KrebMarkt 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. WP:ILIKEIT and I kind of hope it stays but I don't have any strong policy based reason to bold "keep". However, those arguing to delete have a point. I doubt it currently passes WP:WEB but perhaps it's time to consider lowering the bar a bit for popular websites if it's clear the site won't become more popular/notable "because" it has an article. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The First Step

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

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

• Comment - I'm leaning towards delete, but don't know anything about the subject, so it's too early to judge until more opinions are presented, at least. For now, anyone who is interested in finding sources might find this Google search somewhat useful. -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete No reliable sources in there, fails WP:MUSIC. Alternatively, rewrite as an article on the 1994 Tracy Byrd song by this name, which was a Top 5 hit and may be worthy of its own article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rewirte to the Tracy Byrd song. Can find nothing that establishes notability for this band, and the Tracy Byrd song, The First Step made #5 on the Billboard Hot Country Songs, and #4 in the Canadian Country charts.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. It should be noted that the discography is not a list of albums - Connection is a single for instance. There may be another notable topic that could have this title, but this article should be deleted first - we don't want this in the history of any new article.-- Michig ( talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 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 occupation of Gori. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Tamara Urushadze

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

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

• Merge/Redirect – I am more inclined to merge/redirect to occupation of Gori. I agree, one event guidelines should apply. However, it did receive significant coverage that an individual may look for the name. If placed within the occupation of Gori piece, were it relates to, we could satisfy both requirements. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Redirect per Shoessss. -- Nudve ( talk) 21:04, 3 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Fog Creek Copilot

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

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

• Keep – Found more than 2 and less than 10 creditable – verifiable – reliable – 3rd party references, as shown here [16]. What we get into now, is that enough. Which begs the next question, what is enough? Is it a minimum of 3 or 20 or 50, perhaps a hundred? Boy I wish, we could have more definitive guidelines I guarantee it would reduce the nominations, here at AFD, by at least half and reduce heartburn – grief – nervous twitches (developed by defending your point of view) – and other stress related phobias by 90%. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake on the Google search. When I searched Google News I forgot I had to specifically ask for old articles to be included and drew a complete blank. I didn't mean to misrepresent the results of the search and I apologise if I did that unintentionally. I have amended the nomination accordingly. I have looked through the list of hits and, while it provides some verifiability, I am still not convinced the coverage demonstrates enough notability to merit an article. The first hit (ZDnet) is primarily about a film and only incidentally about the software and the rest doesn't seem to add up to much at all on cursory inspection. (Note: I didn't register for the articles that require an ID to read them. I just read the abstracts.) I guess the real question is: How many of these links would actually be useful as references for the article? I think the ZDNet one is the only candidate. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment – No apologies necessary and I never thought that you are misrepresenting. In fact, this is the type of article that should be brought to a AFD in that it is borderline and should have a consensus of the community to either Keep or that nasty thing done :-). My current soapbox is what constitutes significant coverage to establish notability. Sorry, just happened to pick your nomination :-(. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — DanielRigal ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• When I look for notability rather than verifiability, I tend to look for inclusion guidelines rather than references exactly because of that reason. There's discussions what is enough references, but also what is non-trivial or reliable. In this case I wouldn't rely on press releases or the software's website as the only sources. The question is how much the movie covers the info in the article and how independent the movie maker really was. -- Mgm| ^(talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable product. Winner of a Dr. Dobbs Journal "Jolt award" [17]. Reviewed by MacUser here. The film about its development is reviewed here. Referenced in a peer-reviewed article here. Etc. JulesH ( talk) 20:58, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed tall buildings and structures

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

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

• Keep CRYSTAL forbids unverifiable nonsense about future events. Article is only on notable historical and extant plans for buildings, and some well referenced credible scientific research from refereed publications. As CRYSTAL states: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.. In my opinion this is a clear cut encyclopedic article.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Note the article was simply split off of List of tallest buildings and structures in the world due to space reasons.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not only is this a valid split off, I believe WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. I'll cite from the policy page. "ikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The article lists verifiable speculations rather than unverifiable ones and the buildings listed (seeing as they're listed as tallest buildings and structures) would be of interest as an article topic if they were built. The rest of the guideline also doesn't give me any indication how these structures would fit the criteria. - Mgm| ^(talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is a very useful article that is on a notable topic. Many of the planned proposed structures are verifiable. The Space Elevator, for example, has been exhaustively discussed in journal article and science fiction for decades. The fact that no one has built one is not a reason to regard this as crystal-ballery. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep- the only crystals I detect are the ones of water ice precipitating from the sky. The broad topic of the list is one that merits coverage in en encyclopedia, and the various entries are mostly well referenced. It is somewhat speculative, yes, but this is not an unjustified flight of fancy about what the future may hold, it is speculation covered in reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep — it's not crystalballery if it is verifiable. MuZemike ( talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Frequently users attempt to use WP:CRYSTAL to delete articles on anything proposed or planned. Of course WP:CRYSTAL only forbids unverifiable topics, not simply because they're proposed or planned. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep No crystal in this gem on an article. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:25, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Dr Jazz Records

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

Non-notable defunct corporation. Unreferenced and it looks like there isn't any substantial information out there. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and also un-referenced and one-sentence stub, no notability shown. -- American Eagle ( talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:01, 3 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Andrew Allen (musician)

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

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

• Weak Delete. He has won an award [18], though I don't belive it counts as a major one, and has received some local coverage [19], but this isn't enough. If further coverage is found, it may be keepable, but at the moment he appears to fail WP:MUSIC.-- Michig ( talk) 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Google Chrome is failing me. Who are the judges? If there's one thing I learned is that an award is only as notable as the organization giving it out...- Mgm| ^(talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

There are awards and music competitions that are clearly 'major awards', such as Grammy's, Brit awards, MOBO awards, etc., and there are awards that clearly are not major awards, e.g. the Chesterfield King's Arms Battle of the Bands Competition (I made that one up). Others are somewhere in between. I've never heard of the BCIMAs, and there is no article here about the awards, but then again it's probably the case that I've never heard of most things, and there are plenty of notable topics that don't have articles here. The BCIMAs appear to be 'local' awards (though the 'locality' has a population of over 4 million, so is potentially larger than some 'national' awards), so may not be enough to constitute notability on their own, and the fact that I've only heard of one of the award winners (I am unfortunately familiar with Daniel Powter) suggests to me that the BCIMAs don't cut it. It would be helpful if WP:MUSIC could include a list of all awards that are considered major awards - I doubt that it would be a huge list.-- Michig ( talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Does not meet notability standards for musicians. (I originally PRODded this article.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It wasn't just Google Chrome, with IE7 I still can't see any of the pages from the site. I therefore cannot establish who gives out these awards and therefore not establish notability of the award, which is the guy's only claim to fame. Opening for someone famous, doesn't make someone notable. You'd need something near equal billing. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:20, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Consciousness (album)

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

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

• Delete I'm not entirely convinced no sources can be found for this. When I drop "smile empty soul consciousness" into Google (without the quotes I get 22,200 hits, almost all of the first page is relevant to the subject. That said, the track listing is speculative, the part about the band is irrelevant (you can simply link to the band page) and the rest of marketing speak. - Mgm| ^(talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. No problems with recreating article once it has been released, and we have significant independent coverage from reliable sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - tracklist is "possible", release date is vague, sources are blogs - too early, per WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD ( talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 4 December 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 Zeitgeist: Addendum. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The Venus Project

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

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

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

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

• Merge - No evidence that it is notable independent of the film. Otherwise fails WP:N. - SummerPhD ( talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Redirect – I am more inclined to merge/redirect to Jacque Fresco or vice versus. Each individually is marginal at best under the Notability guidelines, as shown here [20], and here [21]. However, together, I believe they meet the standards. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Jacque Fresco is only notable for The Venus Project, though. If a merge is to occur, I think they could both be merged to Zeitgeist: Addendum. Equazcion •✗/ C • 20:29, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment – The reason I say merge to Jacque Fresco or vice versus and not Zeitgeist: Addendum is that Zeitgeist: Addendum only has one part, out of four, dedicated to the Venus Project. The film Zeitgeist: Addendum is not exclusively about the Venus Project. In that both Jacque Fresco and Venus Project have received independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party references outside the Zeitgeist: Addendum film, I believe they should stand on their own in a combined article. Man that was a mouthful :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge - (to Zeitgeist: Addendum) No evidence that it is notable. It is an advert for a corporation, that fails WP:N. Widefox ( talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect – to Jacque Fresco for reasons by ShoesssS above. Each article individually is marginal at best under the Notability guidelines as pointed out above in google search on both. Fresco is mostly notable for being himself in interviews... talk shows, etc.- Incorporating Venus Project into Jacque Fresco makes the most sense to me. Mostly it appears that all of the connected information revolves around Fresco and his opinions, and yes it does appear to be a money making business. It may be that Widefox above is correct in saying their self published information is an advert for a corporation. Mention of Zeitgeist Addendum would be included in a new Jacque Fresco/Venus Project merge article. Merging into Zeitgeist Addendum only, would take away from an older bit of information as to Fresco and Venus project which for better or worse have been around for some time. For that reason I think it is a bad idea to merge with Zeitgeist Addendum which may be trying to gain notability from Fresco... and not the other way around. skip sievert ( talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment a cursory search of the web indicates an exceptionally large number of different "Venus Project"s... this is not necessarily the primary usage of the term. 76.66.194.58 ( talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - to Jacque Fresco. The Venus Project is not currently much more than an extension of Jacque. It is the philosophy and ideas of the man himself that is most notable. -- CharlesC ( talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect - to Jacque Fresco. For now I believe the venus project should redirect to Jacque's page and have a section there for the venus project up until it is expanded enough for it to warrant its own article. ( DrakeLuvenstein ( talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Merge to Jacque Fresco and/or Zeitgeist: Addendum (it should probably redirect to the former). Either way, it doesn't seem to have achieved sufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to justify an article in its own right. Terraxos ( talk) 06:07, 6 December 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 Withdrawn

Hellmuth Reinhard

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

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

• Keep: Article also notes that he was head of the Gestapo in Norway during the German occupation of that country and the subject of a War Crime trial. Seems sufficiently notable. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

• Keep; head of Gestapo in Norway is reasonably notable.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I withdraw this request. It has been expanded and not what I thought it was before. -- American Eagle ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

ok, thanks Musculomusico ( talk) 19:29, 3 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Butterfly Kisses (group)

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

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

• Delete per nom, doesn't say why it is notable, per se, and isn't well-sourced, POV, etc. -- American Eagle ( talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - attack page/non-notable pedophiles' org. forestPIG ^(grunt) 19:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Meh

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

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

• Keep – Since the last AFD-Meh(slang) in 2005, the press has published 67 articles in 2006 [22], 90 in 2007 [23], and 60 in 2008 [24] for a total of 217 articles from 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources concerning this term. Some may say Meh, but I believe the term has evolved to more than a dictionary entry and has established its Notability well within our standards for inclusion at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep – First off, there is no way that this could be a CSD G4, because the current version is completely different than any previous deleted version. The current article begins with a dicdef, appropriately, but the subsequent section on "Controversy" is encyclopedic (not dictionary) material, and of demonstrated WP:N notability since it has multiple non-trivial references. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Controversies related to the word meh" but I would recommend keeping it simple. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep- as stated above, sure the beginning is a dic-def, but after that, the article actually has viable encyclopedic content based on reliable sources. I'd say its transcended being a word that suitable for just a dictionary, and has become an valid topic for an article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep (article creator, and practically the only contributor) Speedy totally inappropriate as that policy specifically excludes examples like this. As far as AfD goes, I recreated the article carefully because I was able to find and include multiple non trivial references in RS. This allows me to argue strongly that it's a notable term and I strongly disagree that the article is "a dicdef". 90% of this article would not be found in any dictionary, not even wiktionary. No doubt over time, the non dicdef elements will grow beyond the controversy sections I've so far listed, but even they are enough to warrant its inclusion according to our deletion policy. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is a dictionary definition, with a few closely related stories cited about controversy over it being included in a dictionary. That in fact shows that it is a very questionable dic-def. Examples of people using it in an article are not convincing as to the need to have an encyclopedia article about it. Especially unconvincing are mere searches showing the three letters appearing in print, without it being the dicdef meaning (" jume (pronounced JEW-meh)," in the first cite from 2006, or "meh" as pronunciation of an Arabic phoneme in another cited article from 2006. Edison ( talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per reason given by Shoessss. Horselover Frost ( talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It is more than a dictionary definition and is topical having recently had a half page article about in The Times. -- SGBailey ( talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Meh, seems to be enough there. Keep. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a slang usage guide. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm puzzled to the point of bemusement by that opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for anything that is notable, whether that is a politician, animal, historical event or, yes, slang expression. In fact, we have an entire Category ( Category:Slang) devoted to slang, with 17 subcategories. So clearly, your objection is not because it's merely slang, but you think it's a "usage guide". But even at a quick glance, the article is demonstrably not a "usage guide". I can therefore only assume you've read an old version of the page, perhaps from your computer's cache, rather than the article that currently exists. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• No, Wikipedia is not a repository for everything which has been noticed. Please see our policy which clearly covers this material when it says Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide.. The place for such material is Wiktionary which already has an article on this. We don't need one too. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• "repository for everything which has been noticed": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable things. According to our definition of notability this is notable. It passes WP:V easily.
• dicdef: What percentage of this article do you consider to be a dictionary definition that would be appropriately placed at wiktionary? All our articles should include a definition. Do you mean to suggest that all our articles should be deleted? I'm amazed you cite WP:NOTDICDEF as it makes my point, not your's:

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

...which has been done. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Please see the main policy article which explains in exhaustive detail the difference between articles about words (which belong in dictionaries) and articles about topics (which is what we do). This article fails that policy. Note also that the proper topic here - casual indifference - is better covered under other titles such as apathy and boredom. Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

this is more than a word and a redirect to apathy or boredom misses the point. Meh is not just a dicdef, but has elements as a social meme, as a topic of controversy and as a notable neologism. If the article discussed just the word's usage, it would fall into the the policy you cite. But it does not. Much like, for example, the articles on apathy and boredom, to pick two examples. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The news media routinely discuss words - their origin, meaning, pronunciation, addition to dictionaries and so forth. There are even entire productions devoted to this such as Call My Bluff, Hot For Words and so on. Such lexicography is insufficient to qualify words for inclusion here since many/most unusual words would qualify and we would turn the place into a dictionary, which is contrary to policy, as discussed. The additional policy which disqualifies such routine news coverage from inclusion here is WP:NOT#NEWS. Colonel Warden ( talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's now enough sources. When the information about a word and its uses is extensive, then its suitable for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic information about a word and how it is used is sufficient warrant for an article here, as long as its more than basic dictionary definition+etymology+illustrative quotation. I think an encyclopedic article could be written for most common words--a dictionary is a summary of it in directory fashion. DGG ( talk) 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Our policy WP:NAD explains in some detail that the length of an entry is not significant. Major dictionaries such as the OED have enormous entries for common words, detailing their etymology, history and usage. This policy explains that the key issue is whether the article is about a word or about a topic. Wiktionary does words while we do topics. Is this not clear? Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I'd disagree with the whole "word vs. topic" test. There's too fine a line between a "word" and a "topic". I think an encyclopedia is in many ways a dictionary with expanded information. I'd say most of our "topics" are merely words, with lengthy definitions, etymologies, histories of use, etc. Would you advocate the deletion of shit too? I don't see much difference there, except purely in length; the type of information contained within is identical. We have way too many articles based on the mere history of words as a function of language to say that those don't make valid encyclopedia articles. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:38, 6 Dec 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If the article consisted of a mere definition, th argument to delete would have some merit. This article consists of much more. The history and controversy makes it a valid encyclopedia entry. Equazcion •✗/ C • 23:30, 5 Dec 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A single definition is not a dicdef.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive..- ( User) Criffer ( Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:00, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Get Out (song)

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

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

• Delete - no indication it passes WP:NSONGS, though nothing prevents you from boldly redirecting.-- Boffob ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I did exactly that. As another editor disagreed with the redirect, here we are. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment - I see. My usual approach is to boldly redirect again and leave a comment on the reverter's talk page, only going to AfD if necessary to avoid 3RR.-- Boffob ( talk) 17:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a non-plausible search term, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns ( talk) 23:27, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Anita Tijoux

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

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

• Keep. References can be found. Was nominated for three MTV Latino awards! [25] -- Mvuijlst ( talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

More references: "a little taste of what young people in Chile are listening to" PRI, Homage to Allende La Cuarta, Chile.com, Terra -- Mvuijlst ( talk) 19:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 with the ref's Mvuijlst dug up.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Persian nectar

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

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

• Weak delete It's a real product, and that's about all one can say. Information online is so scarce that even after a brief search I'm no wiser regarding whether this is a type of tea or a specific brand name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete A brand of tea? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - notability neither asserted nor documented. -- Latebird ( talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:09, 4 December 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 -- JForget 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Joel Case

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

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

• Delete Searched and found no notability at all, and I would have loved to. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF: no citability in googlescholar [26] and WebOfScience and no other information indicating possible notability given in the article or at the university website. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete – At this time. Could find no information, other than one reference in Google Scholar. Likewise, only a associate professor. If Mr. Case had tenure, than I would reconsider my opinion. Likewise, as Espresso Addict pointed out, if I missed something, just let me know. I have a special place in my heart for academics. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, he fairly likely does have tenure, based on his Associate Professor rank. But simply having tenure is far from sufficient for passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reply - I should have expressed myself differently. Full Professorship is what I should have said. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete without malice To paraphrase WP:PROF, if Dr. Case does something that would merit a Wikipedia article in its own right, then we should have an article about him. The (deleted) comment that "His prefered method of teaching is through sarcasm and bad jokes" is hardly a claim to notability among chemistry teachers, but rather a statement of common practice in the field! Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Even if he were tenured full professor, that in itself would not make him notable either. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reply – Typically, when an individual rises to the appointment of full Prosessorship, especially at a larger university, they have meet the criteria as established at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Man, this crowd is tough today :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• comment The operative word here is "typically". Yes, that's true, but not invariably. I think I know several non-notable full professors, even at major universities who are not notable. As they are friends of mine, however, I'll refrain from giving examples... :-) -- Crusio ( talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. And I'm an academic chemist, so I should know ;) Chris ( talk) 17:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Created as a borderline attack page (presumably one of his students' idea of a joke), now that the inappropriate content has been removed there's virtually nothing left. And apparently nothing to add; in addition to the databases already mentioned, Scifinder turns up nothing at all for a Joel Case or a J C Case, and none of the J Cases it finds seem to work at the University of Wisconsin. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Indeed, created as a personal attack, and probably had the desired effect if the subject of the article and/or the class have been reading this deletion discussion. Not very good timing though - grades (and possibly finals) still to come.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:09, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Colin Kennedy

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

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

• Delete since his greatest accomplishment is shooting a video for a band ( We Are The Physics) which itself could be speedy deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The suggestion that We Are The Physics could be speedy deleted is ridiculous (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are The Physics). I couldn't, however, find any significant coverage of this filmmaker, and there is nothing to suggest sufficient notability for an article here.-- Michig ( talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 4 December 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) 13:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek

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

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

• Realized I previously nominated much of this content for deletion earlier, hence the awkward merge into the current article, such as it is. Memory Alpha's array of articles on registry numbers and prefixes already exceeds the (quantity of) content in this Wikipedia article. -- EEMIV ( talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. For a couple of reasons. First, Trek is a major entertainment franchise and there is precedent for articles of this nature relating to the hardware. Second, it is sourced (granted, mostly primary sources but there are secondary ones out there if you look hard enough, and I don't adhere to the believe of some Wikipedians that primary sources are evil, especially with relation to fiction topics). Third, the fact a non-Wikipedia site like Memory Alpha covers this differently or in more detail is irrelevant; there's is misconception MA is part of Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with us, therefore we have no obligation to cater our articles to what they do (beyond a courtesy link or two, of course). A key thing here is that this article is confining itself, it appears, to on-screen references. Therefore WP:NOR isn't an issue. MA, if they do a similar article, can go into the more murky areas of including the books and comics. But I don't see a problem with this as it stands. 23skidoo ( talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I mentioned MA in response to any transwiki suggestions; I doubt anyone actually thinks MA and Wikipedia are related. Can you offer up anything to suggest the topic's failure to assert/establish notability? -- EEMIV ( talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reply – This should help [27]. As noted by the link, there are more than just a handful of articles that deal with “Starfleet” ships. Thus establishing “Real” world notability. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm a reasonable fan of Trek and all, but ... I really don't see the real-world notability of technical details of the Trek universe here. RayAYang ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Realize that Star Fleet Command, which is what several of those Google news hits reference, is a second-order real world derivative: a computer game based on a board game Star Fleet Battles based on the Original series and animated series. I don't think this material is excessive given the scope of Star Fleet vessels in multiple fictional works. It's got references, and some to secondary sources, so passes V and N in my book. Jclemens ( talk) 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I agree that Wikipedia probably needs to fire up a " Starships (Star Trek)" article that includes some of the production info. -- in fact, it was poking around for a good starting point to work on that in user space that reminded me this article exists. However, this article (a catalog of the sequence of registry numbers and some truly minor starship classes) isn't much of a step in that direction. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overall, I'd rather see massive reconstructive surgery and renaming on this article, than to have it deleted and create another one from scratch. At least that way, the history is preserved, rather than blown away. Jclemens ( talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Multiple published works on the topic of star trek hardware establish its notability. Article includes relevant information of real world notability, specifically information on the model design processes that led to the assignment of different numbers to the different ships. JulesH ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 ( talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You mean, other than quoting set/model designer Matt Jeffries on the process that led to the numbering system (ISBN 0-671-03475-8, [28], ISBN 0671002198)?
    • I was taking those into account. I didn't say there were no sources, I said there was no significant coverage. They provide trivial coverage, minor at best. Basically, those sources are not enough to satisfy WP:N. Jay32183 ( talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nominator wants to use this material for some sort of rewrite and so the WP:GFDL requires that we keep this. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Actually, if I were going to use much/any of this material, I wouldn't have nominated it. I'm instead looking for sources outside the franchise; content here I don't plan to squish info. from this article elsewhere. -- EEMIV ( talk) 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I agree. Deleting this and using sources to write a brand new article is definitely better than saving this and hoping sources match up. Jay32183 ( talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is important enough, and there are sources. We have many articles which are essentially descriptive catalogs of semi-notable items. It's a good way to handle them. DGG ( talk) 15:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge with - Startrek ships are certainly notable enough to deserve such an article, my only problem is the duplication betweeen this page and the by class page which seems to present most of the same information in a more clearer way. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• Keep: I could allow this, could do with a few more inline ref towards the end of the article (from the "Class" section downwards) and I'm not really happy about the non-free image's fair use rationale (I'd prefer just a close up of the numbers), but that's not the article's fault. Should say though, I do applaud the nominators "growth", I too have had a similar journey :) Ryan4314 ( talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Władzimir Wałoc Trubetsky

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

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

• Delete per nom. The Rolling Camel ( talk) 14:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - There doesn't seem to be enough WP:RS out there to support this article. I'm convinced that this man existed and was a prince of some sort, but I'm not sure if that alone can confer notability per WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

All such postings by Bloomfield sock puppet farm have both notability and RS problems. And the guy wasn't a prince, I'm positive about that. In addition to having created numerous hoaxes, this person has mistaken wikipedia for a forum for Trubetskoy genealogy. -- Miacek ( talk) 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Regardless of who posted it, no reliable and independent sources have been presented to satisfy the requirement for verifiability and to show satisfaction of the notability requirement per WP:BIO. This is an encyclopedia, not Ancestry.com. Edison ( talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, "not Ancestry.com" actually applies to the whole series of Trubetskoy articles that need to be critically reviewed.-- Termer ( talk) 02:43, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Are You from the Bugle? (Radio Show)

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

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

• Delete - no independent reliable source for notability. Being broadcast on the BBC not sufficient for notability under any known guidelines.-- Boffob ( talk) 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. With respect, Boffob is mistaken. Any program broadcast nationally, on radio or television, is inherently notable. If this were some local show only broadcast in, say, Hartlepool, then there wouldn't be sufficient notability. But its very existence on the BBC satisfies notability. Obviously the article needs to be expanded, etc etc. That's a content issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo ( talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment - let me reiterate the question I asked in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) (2nd nomination): which notability guidelines are you invoking here?-- Boffob ( talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I didn't see evidence of notability. A few shoes, it's time to move on. Merge them somewhere and redirect maybe. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I said before 'A radio show that ran for one month, no evidence of notability. We're not a directory of every BBC radio program. See also, this AfD for other similarly short-lived programs. Simply airing on the BBC is not inherent notability. Existence is not notability and notability is not inherited. StarM 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:03, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Lake Palmer

This AfD was delayed in posting to the AfD list

The completion date should be delayed accordingly. It was posted correctly at 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC). 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lake Palmer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

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

• Nom says delete see above. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article when first created earlier was speedy deleted as it stated that 'Lake Palmer is a puddle in the parking lot'. Quite obviously a 'joke' entry, it was recreated as is and I tagged it for speedy again as previously deleted material but as it hadn't had a discussion this was rejected. I then put a PROD tag on it with an explanation and this was removed and now we are at AfD all discussing a puddle in a car park. The author must be having a heck of a laugh at us! Paste ^Talk 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment the real laugh will come when this AfD is widely ignored and it is relisted as "needing further discussion," with a !vote of 2-1. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete This isn't even deserving of its spot on the UT page, let alone its own page. Jedlink ( talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's unverifiable, and pretty trivial. Even if sourced, probably not worth more than a brief mention on the UT page, if that. Silverfish ( talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks references to show notability. (If it were a dot on a map, would people come trooping in to claim it was inherently notable?) Edison ( talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete with prejudice. I speedily deleted the first appearance of this article as nonsense (the version saying it was just a collection of water in the parking lot), and the author recreated it with "references". The current version of the article doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria, but let's be realistic: Do we really need an article about a parking lot that floods out? It's akin to having an article about the pond in the back of my office building, even though the pond is there permanently, and I could probably find some references to it in its watershed district. We really don't need an article about a puddle in a parking lot. -- Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment too bad IAR/snow-close/delete isn't an accepted consensus option. Or is it? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 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. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Mitch Robinson

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

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

• Weak Keep: He was awarded the best player award at the National Under 18 Champs (Div 2), ergo notability. Needs to add some refs though. The-Pope ( talk) 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Won an award, 40th in draft. Seems like it might squeak by. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete His award needs to be kept in the context of Div.2 of the U18 championships, which featured the three weaker teams. This is slightly unfair in that he had no choice of the state he represented, but as a guide, Tasmania which won Div 2 went on to lose every Div 1 game. So I'm not convinced that winning this lesser award automatically confers notability. Again, if he succeeds and gains appearances at the highest level then notability in my view is assured, but not until then. Murtoa ( talk) 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep On precedent. Similar arguments occurred last year and the year before after the draft, and each time the result was keep. Aspirex ( talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Carlton next season. - Allied45 ( talk) 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa ( talk) 06:25, 6 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Sweet marshall

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Grahame ( talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:NOTFILM. WWGB ( talk) 01:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.- Unpopular Opinion ( talk · contribs) 10:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom, can find no evidence to support its retention. Paste ^Talk 14:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:58, 4 December 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 OLIGO Primer Analysis Software; Delete Piotr Rychlik; Keep Wojciech Rychlik. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oligo Primer Analysis Software

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

This article still fails to establish notability. The immense amount of references imho doesn't change the situation, as all independent references only mention this software as a tool, thematically they cover something else. The article has been nominated and was deleted before (result: delete), the issues have not been resolved. Speedy deletion has recently been turned down, however [29]. This product article is unreadable, constitutes advertising, and formes a walled garden with the two biographies of its developers, Wojciech Rychlik and Piotr Rychlik whose notability is established solely on the notability of the product Pgallert ( talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

• NOTE, I have moved this page to the correct name, the first word should be in all caps. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy - per G4. Recreation of previously-deleted content. // roux    editor review 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy as recreation of material deleted via discussion. The metric ton of cites offer no proof of notability. I just love footnotes abuse...-- Boffob ( talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • dirty footnotes love the abuse // roux    editor review 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep all and cleanup — The two people seem to meet WP:PROF with notability shown by having multiple academic works published. Oligo also meets the general notability guideline with many secondary sources coming from academic sources - which are the most reliable of all the reliable sources. While I do not like the "footnote abuse," either, that is more of an issue of cleanup rather than deletion. Otherwise, I do not see spam nor evidence of a walled garden. MuZemike ( talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete (G4) per previous AfD. Themfromspace ( talk) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment If it is indeed true this was the first primer design software it's clearly a notable piece of software because then it would've started of a range of software by other companies which is still used in biochemistry/molecular biology today. At the moment I don't have access to the source, but I would consider it reliable (not because of the authors, but because it was in a peer reviewed journal). By the way, the last statement sounds off oligo is short for Oligonucleotide, which is in no way trademarked. -- Mgm| ^(talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all three No evidence they are notable per guidelines. The AfD links on the article pages need to be fixed (at least one of them). ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep The wide use of this is shown by the references, and this is a fully sufficient proof of notability. The article is, by the way, much expanded since the previous version, so the "speedy delete" comments here are not relevant/. it's interesting to see articles proposed for deletion because references have been added. As for the bios, they have to be handled separately, and should be removed from this discussion. The factors are not the same--researchers must be discussed in terms of WP:PROF, and that guideline does not apply to the technology. I'll comment on them when there's an appropriate afd to comment. DGG ( talk) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is more of a cleanup issue than a delete. The software is now referenced (needs cleanup) by enough achedemic publications to establish notability in its field. Google matches: There are 2,480 exact matches for "Wojciech Rychlik" and 6780 matches on "Molecular Biology Insights" "inc.", much of which are 2nd and 3rd party research references. I believe the article meets WP:N and WP:V policy, but it needs cleanup. - DustyRain ( talk) 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Here's my take:
  • the software: keep seems sufficiently notable based on the amount of references. Academic publications do not typically publish software reviews, so there is systemic bias that makes software used in academia/scientific communities underrepresented in Wikipedia relative to most consumer software where web-based review abound. If the article on Anti-flirt club is a WP:SNOW keep based on similarly in-passing references, then so is this.
  • Piotr Rychlik: delete. I haven't done my own reasearch on him, but based on what's in the article, he doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF.
  • Wojciech Rychlik: weak keep. He "was instrumental in discovery of human protein synthesis initiation factor eIF-4E mRNA" may qualify him via WP:PROF point 1. Experts need to comment on this claim. Pcap ping 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, software was the first of a large number of programs, so would be notable even if it were not widely used (which it is). The review PMID  1718663 specifically mentions OLIGO as a method to design primers, and it is the only such program mentioned, which I think establishes notability. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Oligo Primer Analysis Software, delete the biographies. The software article has several independent sources that establish notability. Narayanese ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete I've read the deleted article and there is nothing new on the current incarnation that wasn't available when it was previously AfD'd and deleted. Trusilver 16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply