Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27

In today's article we are going to talk about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27 is a topic that has captured the attention of many in recent years, and it is important to understand its implications and repercussions. From its impact on society to its influence on popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27 has proven to be a topic of interest and relevance to a wide range of people. Throughout this article, we will explore different aspects of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27 and discuss its importance in today's world. We hope this article gives you a more complete understanding of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 27 and its effects in our reality.
< November 26 November 28 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan Eyze

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

Non-notable engineer/producer. Google News Archive returns nothing, Google web returns ~200 hits—mostly MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of informal regions

Lists of informal regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't seem to have a point. It is totally unsourced and pretty much just WP:OR. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: There's no criteria for inclusion, and if there is some widespread or common use of the term, I haven't heard it before, nor is it in the article. LH (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think there's any need for this "list of lists", which appears to be a list of Wikipedia articles entitled "list of regions of _____". Whatever else bad I can say about it, it's certainly not "original research" or "unsourced", and I'd say that POV would be a hard sell too. Anyone can verify that, yes, the blue links actually are articles on Wikipedia, as claimed by the author. Perhaps it was intended as a navigational aid. In this case, the category "Regions by country" is more useful for that purpose, and some of these lists need to have that tag slapped on them. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is original research because it admits they are "informal" meaning not official, as a list they are purely POV as to what counts as an "informal region". ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly clear what is meant by 'informal' if you actualy read the articles opening line, or any one of the included lists. If you don't like the name of it, request a move. There is certainly no OR or POV being asserted here, at all. MickMacNee (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not "POV" as it contains no points of view. It is well sourced and linked. It is a useful, and used, resource.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - far better served by a category than a list, and such could easily be made - assuming that some standardised definition of exactly what an "informal region" is could be found... Category:Lists of subnational regions is probably a far better idea. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Categories are not lists. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
      • That's exactly my point. Lists usually have information that is not possible in categories - in cases where they do not have such extra information, categories are usually preferable. A category containing all the pages linked in the current page would be far more appropriate than a "List of lists" linkfarm article, and indeed most "Lists of lists" are more appropriate as "Categories of lists" - such as all these. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no sources at all, and it's hopelessly full of original research because there is no unambiguous definition of what exactly constitutes an "informal region". Reyk YO! 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? Every single list on this list of lists has a definition of what kind of 'unnofficial region' it lists. Sources indeed, you could find a source for every single entry in seconds. MickMacNee (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Having a look through the entries, the Czech one isn't a list at all, the French and Greek ones list places that used to be formal regions, the Irish one contains some areas that still are formal regions and the Australian entry is a list of vaguely delineated geographical areas. This haphazard accumulation of somewhat related but substantially different types of lists is a good example of an indiscriminate collection of information. As for sources, the burden of proof lies with the people arguing to keep. Reyk YO! 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Whatever. If you honestly think the pedia is better off without it than with it, then that's your call. I can't see what is being violated regarding original research/synthesis, and indiscriminate is barley applicable at all. I guess we will never know who/why/when anybody would ever look at this list. MickMacNee (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently original research. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Joanne Shaw

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

Gushing autobiography which claims notability but provides no evidence of it. Once all the gushing self-congratulation is removed there's nothing left, except a bit of shouting. Ros0709 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The hyperbole is not supported by reliable sources, nor by google hits. One is tempted to call this vandalism, and submit it for speedy. In lieu of that, the article may have set a record for number of tags at the top. JNW (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources listed that are independent of the subject of the article are from the "International Society of Poets". This international society seems to be an organisation that anyone can join and as well as receiving a special gold membership pin will "...become one of the recognized leaders of your craft. Your friends, family, and colleagues will look to you as an example of experience, vision, and accomplishment in the poetic world...". Broadly this looks equivalent to vanity publishing so I believe this isn't a reliable source. Hence no notability established. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I was told recently that it is not civil to accuse someone of vanity, merely because their first article is about themselves. I note that this is the author's only contribution to Wikipedia, and that it provides a link to www.joanneshaw.com, the official website for Joanne Shaw. For more about the "International Society of Poets", see Poetry.com here. Mandsford (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has accused anybody of vanity. The term "vanity publishing" and "vanity publisher" are widely used terms to describe organisations that allow self publication with no editorial oversight. See Vanity press. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And by the same token, nobody has accused anybody of being uncivil. Since Ms. Shaw is not in this discussion, we can safely observe that people who write Wikipedia articles about themselves are, indeed, vain. Perhaps this is some form of "performance art" in which someone is merely pretending to be narcissistic, and we are bit players in someone's work of improv theater. In any event, however, it has no place here on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Social protection in France

Social protection in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article may constitute original research. I believe that the article is well-written, and on a topic that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I believe that there are adequate sources for an article on this topic. However, this particular article reads too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the article is not completely enyclopedic. However, you have been misled by the introduction. It is right that the introduction is not suitable (I have always difficulties to write correct introductions), but the rest of the article is encyclopedic and neutral. I will rewrite the introduction soon , so please do not delete the article, I have put a {{construction}}. --Pah777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the lead just needs rewriting a little--it otherwise does seem a perfect good article by the usual standards, though not yet finished. DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination reads more like a critical keep vote or talk page suggestions for improvement than a nomination for deletion. No real reasons for deletion has been provided. (if something is sourceable, it is not really original research). Just needs sources, tags and normal editing.John Z (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is valid, sourced, notable and encyclopedic. It calls for improvement rather than deletion. --Lockley (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a perfect article, but that's not a reason for deletion. The subject is clearly notable and sourceable, so needs editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G4 by JzG. (non-admin closure) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Real VMX

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

generic sourceforge project using Wikipedia for vandalism. does not meet WP:NN. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Global layoffs in 2008 due to the economic crisis

Global layoffs in 2008 due to the economic crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list. What level of layoffs counts as significant for inclusion - or rather, what reliable independent source do we use for what constitutes a significant layoff, and to what extent can we attribute it to the global economic crisis rather than just years of decline, as with Woolworths? MFI retail have been on life-support for years, you can't blame the crisis for that, it was when not if. And do we count layoffs in company failures anyway? Or only in companies that continue to trade? What about companies that continue to trade only on paper?

I think the fundamental premise for this article is flawed. It is much more likely that Wikinews would be the place for a blow-by-blow, until maybe June next year when the timeline articles start getting published in sources. Because, of course, Wikipedia would never be the first place to publish a class of article on any subject. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The current article is heavily biased, a global one will never be complete and it can never be conclusively proven lay-offs are the result of the economic crisis to begin with. <rant>For example, a couple of banks went belly up recently - meaning the employees need to look for other work, but they might well have survived if the bank directors chose not to have their ridiculously large bonuses</rant>. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can understand why someone would want this article, but it's not encyclopedic. Besides, determining what layoffs are the result of the economic crisis is an unmanageable task. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, could never pass WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename title: I think if we can rename the article to Global layoffs in 2008 and keep only layoffs that are of importance, it should be fine. Regarding WP:NOR, I think that's not a problem as every layoff has references to support it. Wiki5d (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    For very few layoffs, however, will you find a citation from a reliable source saying it was due to the economic crisis. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
True; but that's why I propose we rename to article to just Global layoffs in 2008 and remove the due to the economic crisis part. And the need for such an article in 2008 alone can be that this year witnessed a much larger number of layoffs than most of the previous years. Wiki5d (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Antagonist (band)

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

Nominating as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonist A.D., which deleted a cut and paste copy on the grounds of notability. I'm not convinced that the band is non-notable, but music is not my area of interest. If kept, the article should be moved to the current name. The previous AfD under this title was for an unrelated band. gadfium 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

dramatic (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Contact me or another admin for userfication. Black Kite 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Bogaart

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

Declined A7 nominee because it makes an assertion of notability. However, I believe it still fails WP:MUSIC, and based on the edit history, we have a severe conflict of interest in this article's authorship. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The article has only two sources: their own website and myspace entry. There is no third party sources. Notability has not been established. Ruslik (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Smoothvega

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

Non-notable musician. No reliable sources. His "massive" internet fanbase consists of 248 Google hits, most of them myspace, youtube, and blogs. I found intensely brief references at pegasusnews.com, but nothing to write a bio from, and a couple of glancing mentions at Fort Worth Weekly, but nothing at anything approaching major news sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

— Angie6913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A link to a jpg pic of an album cover is insufficient, as is a link to the artist's own site, please take a look at WP:RS.--Oscarthecat (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think they're referring to the external links (inline citations are not used) all over the article. MuZemike (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
— 76.203.194.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 69.149.81.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The article was created on November 27. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by JzG. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) (non admin)

ThumbsPlus

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

Non-notable proprietary software, article is written mostly as advertising. No references or any sources that establish notability or can help verify the content of the article. GreyCat (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Beit HaShalom

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

This organization's article on wikipedia is the result of recentism. The subject has his little notability and is a "one event" matter. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • One of the many concerns I have with this article is recentism. All of this recent media coverage is over one event, the possession of a household. The wider importance of this event to Israel, Judaism and Religion has yet to be explained! As such, this article is about one recent event that has recieved some media coverage. Presently, I do not believe this house has enough notabilty for an article of its own. I am open to changing my mind as well, but at present, this article is about one recent event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Recentism is usually not a reason to delete an article. With the amount of media coverage this event got, I think it would be enough for its own article, and don't mind the article about this house (around which the event is based) being that article. The fact that it's a somewhat unique settler community reinforces the notability of the structure itself. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain more about the "university-level teaching institution?" This is the first I have heard of this information. What university is it related to? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this provision is applicable here. We are talking about a fairly high-profile controversy that has been covered in the national and international media over the period of about 2 years, that ended up in the Israeli Supreme Court and that required involvement of the Israeli Prime Minister. I do not believe that this qualifies under "indiscriminate collection of information". Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This is one event - this article is about one house that is having a court case issue that has recieved some media attention. This article is about nothing more. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
To some extent that is correct, although the event here is a bit difficult to define and the house itself is the center of controversy. However, even with single events, they become notable if they receive significant coverage over a prolonged period of time; that is what makes an event notable and worthy of an article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- the subject of this article has been covered extensively in reliable sources. I'm satified that it's sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. Reyk YO! 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • So for what is it notable? Aside from some coverage of a current event, there is no lasting notability. This is only a passing news story, and no reasons have been provided to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Passing news story? The earliest source is from March of last year and the latest is from four days ago- thirteen substantial articles over a period of almost two years is not merely "passing" media interest. It's a clear demonstration of notability. Reyk YO! 05:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Haunted (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

AfDs for this article:
Haunted (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Debt (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

AfDs for this article:
Debt (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge. We really do not need to become episodepedia, since 99.9999999999% of all content in episode articles is basically reviews and plot summaries written direct form first-hand from personal observation of the episode. Sources are vanishingly rare, other than for the broadcast dates. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was ready to shout at the nominator for not even considering a merge, but this entire article depends on imdb and tv.com. Neither of them is reliable enough to base an entire article on. - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge properly Comparing this with the summary in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6) this article is at least informative enough to indicate what happens in the episode. Almost all of the one paragraph entries in the present summary article have the same failing: they say what the situation is, and stop. It's that which is TVguide content and fails WP:NOT. The plot has to be described so its meaningful, and trailers do not do it, nor are they intended to. That's why I am very reluctant to say just merge on articles like this, until we have some way of enforcing a proper merge. (there is of course non-encyclopedic information in the present article to remove, such as the non-notable ones among the guest actors.) There is an intermediate path--but the fans want to give as much detail as possible, and the deletors as little as possible. DGG (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Notability not established for 1.5 months, and counting. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6) has already got a summary. It's easier to come up with one or two new sentences for the LoE summary than to find a mergeable sentence from this article. – sgeureka t•c 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G4. Also salted for three months. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AndLinux

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

Does not meet WP:NN Message from XENUu, t 20:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chail_Military_School#Notable_alumni. Anyone specifically notable can be merged there.. Black Kite 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alumini of Chail Military School

Alumini of Chail Military School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of non-notable people. Such lists should only contain blue links, this has no links at all. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am looking with dismay at the possibility that this article could possibly be kept. Let me give you a scenario: I put up an article, "Alumni of " and make a huge list of people with no Wikipedia articles, and include my name on the list. Nobody will be able to compare the list with my User ID here on Wikipedia, so who's to say that my name is really on the list? But now, I can go around telling people, "Look, my name is on Wikipedia". If there is no requirement that a list have blue linked articles, then how do we ever possibly know that anybody on a list ever actually exists, let alone is notable, unless somebody takes the time to actually look up every single name on the list? Has anybody done this with this list? Do we know that all of the names, or even a majority of the names, are real people, and that they're notable enough to be here? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive Bonus CD Sampler

Exclusive Bonus CD Sampler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article sites no references, has no charts or positions, and Is most likely an insignificant mix tape release and not an actual album. Ratizi1 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If Reyk's final comment turns out accurate, a possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Aslan's How

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

A place in a fictional universe with no indication of notability. No 3rd party references have been added in a year. Pcap ping 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Here are ten such sources:
  1. C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works
  2. The Christian World of C. S. Lewis
  3. The Dictionary of Imaginary Places
  4. The Keys to the Chronicles: Unlocking the Symbols of C.S. Lewis's Narnia
  5. C. S. Lewis in Context
  6. The way into Narnia: a reader's guide
  7. Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination
  8. Finding God in the Land of Narnia
  9. Imagination and the Spirit: Essays in Literature and the Christian Faith
  10. The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary
Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. You are obviously bullshitting me. I'm not going to go through all those books, so I've randomly picked The Christian World of C. S. Lewis . This hill is mentioned only twice in the book, on page 126. There's no discussion whatsoever about the importance of this hill. From this book we find out that out this is a "much tunneled hill", and that "attempting to go up to Aslan's How by an untraveled road, they got lost in the mountains." And this coverage makes it worthy of article? Mountains out of molehills, quite literally... Pcap ping 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Although and because I cannot find a source explicitly mentioning it, the allegory is obvious to me. But then most significant places in the Bible have some allegorical equivalent in Narnia. For instance, the stone table is considered a key symbol in Journey Into Narnia , and it is an obviously allegory as well, but the How is barely mentioned. Wikipedia has an article about the How, but no article about the stone table. I'm not convinced that a separate article about the table is justified either, but an article about Biblical allegories in Narnia should definitely mention the table. This the problem with many Wikipedia articles about cherry-picked fictional elements: they are written off the top of someone's head, contain just plot summary, and pay little attention to literary criticism sources about the topic, even when those sources abound. Pcap ping 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if the place is not notable for an article of its own, it's clearly notable in the context of Narnia, so merging should be considered before deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep considerable possibility of expansion, because the present article doesn't start to discuss the film & video versions. As Col.W points out, any criticism of CSL discusses the religious aspects, and a number of books have been devoted to the religious aspects in particular--not just because they're very impt. in his work, but because of the controversy about the suitability of his books from some religiously conservative groups. And of course there is no Deadline in improving or referencing an article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm siding with both Colonel Warden and DGG on this. Plenty of sources are being cited here and I am very concerned at the accusation of bad faith being put forward towards Warden by Pcap, who I strongly recommend reviews WP:FAITH and WP:EQ. 23skidoo (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Meh. Pcap could possibly have chosen better words, but is completely correct in saying that level of coverage isn't anywhere near enough to substantiate a full article. Reyk YO! 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gobbolino, the Witch's Cat

AfDs for this article:
Gobbolino, the Witch's Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1000 recordings

1000 recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article can't seem to decide what the book is called (at least three variants are given: "1000 recordings", "1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die" and "1001 Albums") which does not inspire confidence in its accuracy. The only reference is the site for the book itself so fails WP:RS and WP:N. The list itself is probably a copyright violation. Ros0709 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The entry is not very different from the long standing article 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Yes, confusing that there are two books with very similar names (1001 Albums vs. 1000 Recordings) but not the articles fault. This one is no different in terms of copyright than the other one, so delete both or neither. Anyway I thought lists and indexes were not copyrightable. Despite the apersions above, the list is in fact 100% accurate. Find one thing wrong with it. And if you do, fix it, rather than complain that the whole article should be removed.

The other comparable long standing article would also be subject to the putative WP:RS and WP:N criticism. The WP:RS and WP:N issue seems specious. Both articles are saying "a book said these are the top 1000 albums/recording". The wikipedia article claims no more and no less than that it faithfully renders the list in the book. I do agree that the title of the entry should be changed. The Wikipedia user interface seems to channel you into giving it the original shorthand name you searched for, then offer no way to change it later.

I thought the article was good enough, had enough meat, for the community to build it up, improve it, rehabilitate it. But if your standards are that only perfect articles can be submitted, and that peoples goal is to criticize something they could just as easily fix, then you have just seen my first, and last, wikipedia submission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep The title of the book is 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die, and it is totally distinct from this book, which was edited by someone else. The topic of this article is a fairly notable book , although I agree that the list should probably go. Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you get rid of the list in this 1000 Recordings article, then get rid of the list in the 1001 Albums article too. But that other article has been around for 2 years. I don't think you can copyright a list. I just don't see why everyone is attacking this article when it is just like an existing 2 year old article.
  • I removed the list from that other article. I'm not a copyright expert, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. We recently had trouble with Nielsen Media Research because of the way we were reproducing some of their data. We could still discuss more general facts about the book, as well as the book's reception. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Judith Mossman

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

Article is a collection of plot and original research. Nothing for WP:N, or even WP:V. Searching turned up nothing for stand-alone notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawn per Sabre below.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There for Tomorrow

There for Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Struggling to find any reliable coverage of this band, only a profile on allmusic seems to exist, aside from that very little. Searched google news. MTV etc, only thing that seems to come up are listings. neon white talk 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any charting hit on the Hot 100, billboard.com confirms this. Top Heatseekers is not considered under guidelines, a 'national music chart' refers to the primary chart for any country in the US this must be the Hot 100. --neon white talk 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sweet as, could you please point me to a Wikipedia guideline to back that up, because WP:CHART doesn't mention that from what I can see.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That is a nonsensically high bar for a band to have to pass before having considered "charted". Billboard's specific charts (genre specific and market specific) are intended to indicate the best-selling groups within smaller markets, and these are just as legitimate in demonstrating a group's importance. Now, with a charting album, coverage in Allmusic and AP, an album on Hopeless Records, an MTVU award, and several national tours (with Anberlin, most recently, among others)...what's your Heymann standard here? Chubbles (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really, techincally every article should have multiple secondary sources, as specified at WP:N, criteria at WP:MUISC is just additional, HOT 100 is the national chart in the US comparable with other national charts, we have never considered genre specific charts, download charts, store charts or any other specialist chart to be adaquate. The logic being that those charts are not as noted as the HOT 100. Evidence of coverage of national tours is needed. Small non notable awards arent considered. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I dispute that the 'Alternative Press' source can be considered 'significant' coverage, it's two paragraphs at most. We would need some evidence of the others to verify them. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Blade article is 15 paragraphs and totals 707 words. The Sentinel article is 28 paragraphs, 581 words. Both are entirely about Maika Maile and his band. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Carmelita Fox

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

Article is a collection of the plot summaries from the games and original research. Searching has shown no references to give any notability to the subject. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have actually proposed that, but the massive amount of plot involved made it seem like a bad idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
One does not have to merge everything'. The place to discuss how much to merge is the talk page of the article one is proposing to merge to. FWIW, shje seems to be one of the 4 central characters of the game. DGG (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, no sources, only supporting comments are from article creator and socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Matthews

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

I can find no reference to this player at all, links that are added to article by author all fail to be anything about this Andy Matthews. I have asked the author several times to show verifiable info on the subject, he/she has ignored me. I am pretty sure that this is a hoax. Paste (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Привет, Как русский, живущий в Москве я могу подтвердить, что рассматриваемый игрок - geniune. Я надеюсь, что это помогает. Католик Roman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman121212 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


andy matthews did play for leeds and signed for transfer to a russian team, he was a great player and is dearly missed by his club - Dr Mike Sahid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.147.22 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

KEEP The page is a biographical enrty about a proffesional footballer in the second tier of russian football. I feel it insulting that just because he is a little known player that he should be subject to such debate. Do thesepeople have nothing better too do than try have a page removed on the grounds that they no nothing about the subject. Is that not the point of wikipedia itself, for us to learn something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larns20 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Parry

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

Unnotable "film maker" although according to this source, he is just a sound guy for a couple of films. He isn't as great as the article makes him out to be. Tavix (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DBEdit 2

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

Non-notable software, promotional (with expression of "suitability") article written by software's creator. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR 2010

NASCAR 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing improperly finished nom which was appended to the end of another nom. Reasoning was, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but the page for NASCAR 2010 should be deleted, no information on if that game is even being made has been released. Fisha695 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott Stapleton

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

Article was speedied as an A7 because it didn't really make a claim of notability at all; it reads more like a memorial page to a dead friend than anything else. Creator subsequently posted to my talk page yesterday, stating that because the subject once spent one summer interning for the US Department of State and cowrote a paper on the 2002 terrorist incident in Bali (although the article incorrectly stated that the paper was about India), his notability came from the as yet unsourced suggestion that his paper was strategically relevant to yesterday's terrorist incident in Mumbai. (The article was created in August.) Article contains no real sources, linking only to a standard death notice of the type that absolutely every deceased person gets in the newspaper, two profiles on college sports websites (only one of which provides any actual detail about him as a person) and the Bali paper itself (but with no independent sources whatsoever to suggest that the paper ever had any documented impact on diplomatic or strategic responses to terrorism.) I still don't see any actual notability here, but since the speedy was disputed I'm bringing this here on procedural grounds. No !vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The debate is leaning that way, but more importantly, do no harm. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Cole

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

Page deletion was requested by the page's author at the apparent request of the subject; however, because other authors have contributed, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't technically apply. IMO, the subject is of such marginal notability that we should respect the request for deletion, especially given the possible BLP concerns, but bringing it here for consensus one way or the other.  – iridescent 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Satyr, point taken. — Becksguy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Author's Second Response: I have been going over the notability guidelines and have reached the current (if hardly final) conclusion: according to Wikipedia standards, a marginally notable person who has requested removal of their entry should have their request respected. Great. However, while Sebastian Cole's notability may seem limited, the fact is that he won (with however many other people-- that's irrelevant) a national, competitive award in a recognized category, and while "only" winning one such award may make him seem "marginally" notable, it makes him far more notable than someone who got, say, an honorable mention. Inasmuch as Wikipedia is intended as a repository first and foremost for notability, this individual meets that criterion (though he may want to string me up personally for saying this about him, and probably will once he reads this). Wikipedia has decided that winners of GayVN awards are sufficiently notable to have their names (their "stage" names, mind you-- Sebastian Cole is not this actor's real name) listed on the GayVN page. Given that, and regardless of the individual's request (I realize this must seem very confusing, as I am the person who originally authored the page and am now speaking here on behalf of the actor who would like it removed), the complete removal of this entry recreates an information vacuum on Wikipedia which, if not filled in now and accurately will probably be filled at some point soon by someone (if not me). As a counterexample, Becoming Playboy's "Pet of the Month" (see discussion ] is not a genuinely competitive award and does not by itself merit notability; winning (and even winning and sharing) an award for "Best Group Scene" IS a competitive award, and this individual WON (yes, shared) it. This seems to be the simplest reason for keeping the entry, albeit in a pared-down and very impersonal format, which is how his adult film career is already recorded in other places on the Internet. If Wikipedia had decided long ago that the adult film industry was unworthy of encyclopedic consideration, then this entry would obviously be inappropriate... Given that Wikipedia has made a different choice (by long-established consensus), then this is not the case. Even if Sebastian tears me a third corn shoot when all is said and done (let me re-assert that I am personally completely ambivalent about this page-- if it stays, I get credit for contributing to the world of knowledge that exists on Wikipedia but may lose a friendship; if it goes, the world of knowledge will be darker but Sebastian won't be upset with me-- I really should have checked with him first, I know, and I'm in a pickle now because I didn't, but whatever, that's my issue). I am trying to reach a reflective and Wiki-consistent conclusion that does not take any of my own intentions into consideration, and right now I guess I am leaning more towards keep based on the simplest and most internally consistent argument I can come up with. Yes?? -- KDS4444Talk--KDS4444 15:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Very thoughtful comment. Kudos. We can always keep the article, but strip the biographical details. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think we have to move away from a belief that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are solid, immovable rules for inclusion. These guidelines merely provide help to show what sort of thing is and is not acceptable - it's not a court of law, precedents don't apply - it's about consensus. It's not a case of simply looking at what it says in the rulebook - this is the dignity of another human being we are talking about, and an argument based on the notability guidelines alone won't cut it. Remember: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Let's allow this guy the privacy and dignity he has requested. – Toon(talk) 16:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Subject doesn't want an article, he's of marginal notability. Have some respect. Our project is not going to suffer for not having this bio. The world will be okay. لennavecia 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Author's third (final) comment: "Fine by me". iridescent, Can you go ahead and remove? This page has been up for awhile, and though I have no doubt that someone someday will recreate this entry, and though several people have argued for its inclusion, perhaps now is simply not the time. We are human, we can choose. Sebastian would rather not have a Wikipedia entry, and in the end, above all desire for accuracy and intention towards completeness, maybe this deserves more respect than anything. -- KDS4444Talk

--KDS4444 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete; this, again is another case which illustrates why verifiability and not "notability" (in the sense of importance) ought to be our inclusion criteria. The GayVN is a significant award, and it is a worthy ambition for an encylopaedia to have entries on every winner. However, all we seem to be able to verify here is that the individual won the award, and a few incidental details from the IAFD. I've looked for reliable sources that include some detail about this individual's life, and could not find anything, WP:GNG-fulfilling or not. Although I firmly believe that moralizing about what the ethical thing to do in these situations has no place in an encyclopaedia, we cannot have BLP's whose basic content is unverifiable, because to do so is a disservice to our readers as we would be propagating bad information. I would much rather that the first Google hit is the straightforward, minimalist IAFD entry rather than a speculative Wikipedia article of questionable veracity. So, the ideal thing to do here would be to redirect to List of GayVN winners, where a single verifiable line of information could be included, but in the absence of that list, and of a minimal amount of coverage in reliable sources, we must delete, "notability" be damned. the skomorokh 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per SatyrTN's input (it was said best...and first!). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DataObjects.Net

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

This 'development framework' was initially released 85 days ago. The article does not demonstrate that the development framework is notable, and does not give sources for its assertion that the product is different from its competition. The framework is at least partly a profit-making enterprise, meaning that this article functions partly as an advertisement. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Perkins

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

A non-notable singer. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Had one appearance in the charts, at #76... that doesn't assert even a shred of notability. Most likely written by a fan. TopGearFreak 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy/Snow Delete 1 hit at Number 76? Not remotely notable. --Numyht (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • At WP:MUSICBIO, requirement #2 says "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." I think he would pass that, if we can get that verified. So my vote would be Keep if that can be verified, but if not Delete.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album). Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rhythm Of Your Heart

The Rhythm Of Your Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:NSONGS.

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

McWomble (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Palit

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

Disputed prod. This company may manufacturer good products but that does not mean the company is notable and deserves an article here. If there is notability to be established it must come through reliable sources and not corporate PR departments. JodyB talk 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rocknow

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

Either a very obscure band or an outright hoax. I cannot find any evidence that this band actually existed. McWomble (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Donna Reid

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

WP:POLITICIAN, failed candidate, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Birmingham

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

Part-time footballer who has never played professionally, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by editor who mistakenly believed that he played for Portsmouth. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dejan D Savic

Dejan D Savic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable semi-pro/amateur football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tumtum and Nutmeg

Tumtum and Nutmeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. McWomble (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Apart from the rather lengthy Times online review given in the article, there are at least two Telegraph reviews (paragraph long, not very extensive) of individual books in the series; and , and a slightly longer review in the Guardian. Add to that that it was shortlisted for the Waterstone's Children's Book Prize, and I think it passes our notability guidelines (perhaps not overwhelmingly, but clear enough for me). Fram (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's plenty of reviews to base an article on. The award nomination is the icing on the cake. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reviews alone do not necessarily meet the requirement for substantial coverage. A nomination is not sufficient - WP:BK clearly requires a book to have won a major literary award. McWomble (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Not neccesarily, no, but I do think the reviews are substantial coverage in this case. - Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River)

Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayard Bridge.
The problem here is that there's nothing to say about this bridge. There's no sources and the article only really states the location, nothing about design, use and historical significance. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

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

According to the history presented in the article, this actress has had no career what-so-ever apart from this new, about-to-be-released movie. I'm not so sure that that's an assertion of notability, can you all please weigh in here? — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 12:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

* Delete As it stands, all the article states is she's been cast / filmed a not yet released film, moved to the US and a producer seems to have a freckle fetish. I'd say, unless anything else can be provided - and imdb lists this film only - it's non-notable. Delete and re-create a better article once the film in released when she gains notability. Minkythecat (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 in Hot 100

2008 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

2008 in Hot 100 hasn't been updated since July and pretty much is a copy of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States), similar articles were deleted back in June (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100) ---Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating the following article:

2007 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) see Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (United States)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heat Regenerative Cyclone Engine

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

Non-notable (and extremely dubious from an engineering POV) commercial product. No references, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge I don't dispute that the article needs a lot of work, but it does seem to show an interesting new technology, and it does appear to be going into production (see ref I just added to article). If this cannot remain on its own page, perhaps the content can be merged with External combustion engine? (I have no links with the company, merely an interest in steam engines in general, and this seems like an interesting new application of steam technology.) EdJogg (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
(Update) just found another reference (added to article) to show that this engine has also won several awards. Yes the article is in a state, but I think deletion is premature. EdJogg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as covert spam, unless it can be drastically rewritten before the end of this AfD. BradV 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Market Watch, published by the WSJ is a Reliable Source, and a major article there about the company is sufficient, and is sufficient evidence for the awards. With the awards, there is no possible question about notability. Spammy articles get rewritten, not deleted. The Motor Trend article confirms it. Market Wire is another matter entirely--its just a publication service for unaltered press releases and has no more importance than the company's own site--I can't figure out why Google News includes it. DGG (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominic St. Charles

Dominic St. Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, reason was Member of 3 bands, none of which has any established notability. Google search did not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems a solid reason to delete to me but I would like to have more opinions. Thanks. Tone 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I put the prod tag on this article on the 7th of October, and it seems that although it was not contested at the time, it was never deleted. I see this as an uncontroversial deletion, so it's a Delete for me. Procedurally, it could perhaps be deleted without this discussion since the prod ran its course, but if anyone feels it needs further discussion I have no objection.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I see what's happened now - it was deleted and has been restored. Fair enough.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Finding rare books

Finding rare books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a how-to guide. I don't doubt that the author has acted in good faith and has tried to be helpful, but there is no encyclopedic topic being commented on in this article. It may be possible to find a use for this author's experience in wikipedia, but not in this way. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Lectonar as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mathew dibble

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

This article is likely a hoax or a joke. The article is, at any rate, unsourced and unverifiable, and may be defamatory. There is no text worth saving. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete as G12 SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PTU's Gian Jyoti School of TQM & Entrepreneurship

AfDs for this article:
PTU's Gian Jyoti School of TQM & Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe that this article is written in a promotional style, and that it is better to delete this text than to attempt to fix it. The article also contains much corporate newspeak and should be rewritten in a more objective and detached tone of voice. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedied by Dweller. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jon Keepen

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

This boy is captain of his high school cricket team, and plays for division 5 of the North Somerset Cricket League. He has played 18 matches and has not achieved any records. I say that he is not notable enough to be included. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete a9, album by artist with no article; no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3.10.85

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUMS. McWomble (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Society of the Golden Rose

Society of the Golden Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced. Possible hoax. Google suggests a society of that name did exist in 18th century Russia but nothing backs up this article. McWomble (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Who killed 2pac

Who killed 2pac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is unsourced original research, not an encyclopedia article. PROD removed in the course of vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. inclement weather, nom withdraw (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates

Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivia, filled with OR, seems like it's more about proving some sort of point about who gets elected rather than satisfying WP:ENC. Yes, all people mentioned in the article are WP:N, and it's relatively well-referenced, but the people are notable, not their heights. roux   10:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rania Ibrahim

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

Recreation of article previously deleted under G12. Article is improved but still fails WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - (I new page patrolled this article earlier today). I say that this person is noteworthy. The article is verifiable and contains information of value to an encyclopedia. Speedy deletion without an AfD consensus does not set a precedent that binds AfD participants. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I understand that you are new here. Wikipedia is not arbitrary and what you "think" isn't necessarily relevant. What is notable or not is governed by policy - for example: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news stories, if you are looking for something like that, I suggest you check out wikinews. And the suggestion that a youtube video makes something notable is so hilarious I honestly have a hard time keeping a straight face. No, I'm sorry, a youtube video does not make something notable. I suggest you take a look at WP:V and more specifically, WP:SOURCES. Trusilver 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Stanford Harmonics

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

Recreation of a previously-deleted article. Acapella group of little notability beyond Stanford University. Clear issues of advertising, self-promotion, conflict-of-interest, and general vanity. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Notability is not inherited; the fact they are affiliated with either Stanford University or Palo Alto College is immaterial to establishing their notability as a musical group. Moreover, anyone can cut, produce, and release an album which is why reliable third-party publications are necessary to establish notability. There is no assertion of notability or importance nor is there likely to be forthcoming as is common to the vast majority of college and university acapella groups. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)

Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is covered much more thoroughly and in line with our NPOV policy in Cydonia Mensae dougweller (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Groth

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

not notable; barely found anything on Google for this particular Michael Groth -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's accomplishments

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

This article is essentially an old copy of three sections of the Albert Einstein biography. I suppose that a decent article could be created on the subject, but neither the creator nor anyone else seems interested in doing so. Instead, any changes in the covered sections go into the biography and not this article. This article does not include his Annus Mirabilis papers, which were among his greatest accomplishments. Unless this article is converted into a decent subarticle, anyone who stumbled on it would be misled; fortunately that is unlikely, for no articles link to it. —teb728 t c 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I Love New York: Charm School

I Love New York: Charm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I Love New York: Charm School is a speculative show, and it was scheduled to be deleted tomorrow. An anon user removed the tag, but with that exception, the only editors to the page were myself recently, and the user who created the page, User:Nerdybrianc. Clearly, the page should have been deleted months ago, but no one really noticed. Even reverting back to the previous edits before I touched the page shows nothin as a reference except for youtube, and websites from January of this year. I feel that without any other input, this article has been one sided, and based from unknown or unconfirmed information.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Moon

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

Fails any criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Cybergirls of the weeks are not equivalent to Playboy playmates. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Palafox Associates

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

Notability of the organisation has not been established sufficiently. There are no references (aside from their website), and it reads like an advert. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And frankly, I don't know if there will be one any time soon. For those who haven't all ready looked, there's an interesting discussion over at the WP:FICT talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination)

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Previous AFD listings:
May 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons
July 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
August 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (third nomination)
October 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination)
  • This is basically a long example of listcruft, and although it appears to be well-referenced, all the sources are either first-party or taken from IMDb trivia. It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the nom, so the edit, talk etc aren't in the header. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Only one of the references is IMDB and first-party sources are perfectly acceptable (just not in establishing notability). The topic characters from the Simpsons is already proven notable. As for the comment: "It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it." Based on the fact you call it listcruft, I don't think I'd be far of if I said you don't like it (which is an equally bad line thinking).- Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone should look into this by the way, either someone misnumbered these or we're missing the true second nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for three personal-judgement reasons: (1) One-time characters are nearly always nonnotable and have no connection to each other, so a group listing seems like listing for the sake of listing (some would call it "cruft"). (2) The few characters who are actually memorable/notable can be fully covered (with more context) in the The Simpsons episode articles, which don't seem to go away in the near future. (3) This list has strong similarities with a list of episodes, so why can't the characters be mentioned in the LoE/season pages in the first place (unless they are too nonnotable for the plot summary, but then why mention them on wikipedia anyway?). – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't think that every show would deserve to have a list like this, but I believe that The Simpsons is unique. 24 Emmies, longest running sitcom ever, longest running animated series ever, (equal) longest running primetime series ever... A one-time character in The Simpsons is notable enough for wikipedia. I believe that wikipedia is made more useful, more interesting, and more relevant by including popular culture. We have obscure mathematical theories that hardly anyone understands, and musical works by famous composers that are rarely played. I believe that if these things are considered 'notable', then popular culture articles like this are equally notable if not more so. Don't look down on this article because it's about a cartoon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. One time characters are not notable. McWomble (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sgeureka. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep* This section holds valuable information and has clearly taken a lot of research and confirmation. Everybody who has written here has a reason to find it, and so it has worth. Myself i was looking for the Parody Lucius Sweet is on. This page provided me with that information. Wiki is after all, there to give answers to questions. The page in question answered my question and is therefore doing its job as a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.120.31 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You would also be able to easily find that character if the redirect of Lucius Sweet was changed from here to the correct episode. – sgeureka t•c 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Simpsons is one of the most influential television shows of all time, and has produced its fair share of memorable one-shot characters. While Sguereka and Marasmusine are correct that the characters can be discussed in the episode articles, an article like this is useful for navigation purposes. The grand list of episodes doesn't contain any episode descriptions, and while the season LoEs do, most readers will not know by heart which season a character appeared in. They'd have to browse through 20 lists, which is a bit daunting. On top of all that, readers may only vaguely remember what the character's name was, and how it is spelled, which rules out redirects to episode pages as a useful solution. But browsing through a page like this, they can hopefully find what they need. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should we have lists of one-time characters in every other popular television show as well? I don't think so. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - These characters, if they are important one-time characters, should already be called out in the various episode lists and the episodes themselves as a character in those, redirects from their names going to those locations. Having them listed here is sorta flipping the episode lists/episodes around to describe the character in light of the episode. That is, this information is highly duplicative of what should already be listed in the episodes. There's also an arbitrariness to this list, suggesting some one-time characters are more important than others that aren't included, and that some characters have reappeared (albeit non-speaking) thus not one-time. Where there are notable sources ("Hank Scorpio") these should be appropriate listed on the episode page in the question (not that most Simpsons episodes need it, but if this was the only notable aspect of the episode, I'd say it would still be enough to keep the episode instead of making a separate character page). --MASEM 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable characters, in a non-notable list. If they were one time characters then they don't have their own page, and their only mentioned, and already, mentioned on the episode article page. We don't need a list of them. At best, I'd say redirect each character's name to their episode article (since this is The Simpsons and I know every episode has an article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In many other articles, as a cleanup process, we removed characters with fewer than x appearances. (where x usually 1,2 or 3). These characters are not notable and have a very minor (maybe not at all) influence to the show alone. It seems like a way to write the plot of some episodes again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep there are several reliable sources in the article, which establish notability for the topic.—Chris! ct 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not enough? Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Washington Post to name a few are pretty substantial and independent. The NYT and EW articles go into detail about the characters. There's not enough information to support individual articles, so The list is a good place to combine the sourced information. I can understand people have issue with the list format, but the sourcing here is pretty solid and indicates there'll be more independent sources out there too. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • These sources can safely be brought into the individual episode articles to go on about the character in the reception, as an alternative to this list. --MASEM 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think redirecting to individual episode articles is a useful solution per User:Zagalejo's reasoning.—Chris! ct 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Zagalejo's reasons is based on users thinking they know the name of a character but can't recall episode or season. That's reasonable, but with redirects to catch most major misspellings, WP's search engine that guesses closely named characters, and the ability to create categories to sort characters all avoid the need for this list. --MASEM 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not add another tool? Sometimes, a reader will have trouble even coming up with a search term. I suppose the last option could help solve that problem, but I think lists are much easier to use for those who aren't Wikipedia experts. A category also eliminates the brief descriptions of the characters, which can ensure readers that they've found what they were looking for. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur.—Chris! ct 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm of Sickness Records

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

The result was redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Since the bio is unduly negative it is in violation of BLP. Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hurley

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

per WP:BLP1E. If Wikipedia's BLP policy means anything, then this article should be deleted and not redirected anywhere. Hurley is a senior sergeant, not a high ranking Queensland Police officer, and other than his involvement in the incident that lead to a death that lead to a riot, is entirely non-notable. He was, rightly or wrongly, found not guilty of the charges against him and given that this is the only thing he is notable for, we should show some common decency and remove the article. Note that the notableevents involved are covered elsewhere. Mattinbgn\talk 06:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Because if there is a redirect then my understanding is that any search for Hurley would point to the Palm Island riot article, which is an improvement on the current situation but still ties the Chris Hurley page to the one event. Maybe this is unavoidable but I don't see why it must happen. I would rather leave the page as a redlink. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Chris Hurley may have originally risen to public notoriety on the basis of just that one single event, but his fame has grown beyond that to include award winning essays & a whole book discussing Hurley's life and police service in Queensland Aboriginal communities (see here & here) .. in what his biographer Chloe Hooper described at a Melbourne writers festival as "a modern morality tale about white and black Australia" (refer here). Perhaps article should be tidied up/ rewritten a little, but otherwise kept Bruceanthro (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that WP:ONEEVENT especially cover the event, not the person, precludes a redirect to the Palm Island article. I haven't had a chance to look at the sources provided above by Bruceanthro but there may be enough to pass notability aside from the riot. StarM 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is exactly the type of article that we have the WP:BLP#1E provision for. That perhaps the press has now taken a minor interest in things about him that otherwise would pass unnoticed (per the links provided by Bruceanthro) is not significant. Almost any figure who is captured in the media spotlight gets sort of attention to their daily life - Peripitus (Talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the time has passed. The main article is enough, Phenss (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - salting the page. considering the redirect looking at article traffic stats this month so far 260 odd times with a 20%(51 hits) of the traffic in the one day since the commencement of this discussion, other months have between 110-280 hits per month with those figures I dont see a need for the redirect given that it raises WP:BLP concerns as Hurley was found not guilty in relation to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody, though maybe a redirect to Queensland Police as he is/was QLD police officer. Gnangarra 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This person has become famous in Queensland as a result of his involvement in the death of Doomadgee. His trial for manslaughter was a highly publicized one, and the findings of the Coroner and decisions by lawyers leading up to to his trial also received a lot of attention and attracted a lot of controversy. I'm afraid all of this is a separate, albeit related one to the palm island riots. The Coroner's findings, as well as those of the DPP and Lawrence Street and his trial were not a part of the riots themselves. Apollo1986User_talk:Apollo1986 —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep - if the article has POV issues, then we should fix it up if we truly are to keep Wikipedia a cooperative community. Hurley is definitely notable in the media and just about all the statements in that article are referenced. If you need positive references to balance it, then fine and good, but to just delete the article is purely laziness (and in effect an exercise in censorship). Bad things happen and just because they are doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover it. BLP1E is just an excuse to indulge in lazy editing too, so there is no good justification in quoting it as a reason to delete. INTGAFW (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment BLP1E is Wikipedia policy and balance in an article is not a simple matter of having 50% positive content to balance the 50% negative. The existence of this article, in any shape, reflects negatively on a non-public person who has been not been found guilty of any charge. As for enforcing BLP being "pure laziness"—pure laziness is refusing to enforce core Wikipedia policy. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not "core policy" - it's a pathetic excuse for paranoid management here who don't want to be sued for defamation and is a policy that was never agreed to by the majority of users and is just another excuse for the deletionists to flourish. It's absolute censorship if you delete this article (and especially so if you delete the redirect) and shows how much this thing is going downhill. You can find all those articles in the media articles that are linked, so you're not going to stop the information being developed. So fix it up so at least Wikipedia can be seen to have a good and balanced article on this. INTGAFW (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you retire from Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)How is it censorship? No-one is stopping you writing whatever you want on the topic, just not here. It is not censorship to enforce BLP1E any more than it is censorship to enforce WP:OR by deleting non-complying content, another core policy (not sure if you class that policy as "pathetic" and "a joke" as well). WP:BLP is about more than just our legal obligations that you so blithely wish to throw out the window, it is also about our moral responsibility to treat those people we write about with dignity and respect. Given that all relevant content in this article is better placed elsewhere, the only reason for this article's existence (and the redirect if it is retained) is to tie a non-public person to the death of another person, for which he was tried and found not guilty? Why should a person, having not been found guilty of any crime and having stayed away from the public eye—both during and after the trial—have activist editors using Wikipedia as their soapbox continue to try and cast aspersions on him and why should Wikipedia allow itself to be used like that? If you want to go elsewhere and write whatever you like about the subject elsewhere, bearing the consequences of your actions yourself, be my guest. If the newspapers wish to print whatever on the topic, fine. None of that means that BLP1E should not be enforced here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Notable! while Chris Hurley may (?) wish to fade into obscurity, out of the public eye, ... the fact remains that he has had a third party, in depth biographical material published about him (see previouos comment) .. .. estabishing him as a likely and historically enduring notable person in both Palm Island and Queensland history of police - Aboriginal relations ... WP:BIO notability criteria is satisfied, and future Wikipedia users researching Queensland history ought legitimately expect and find article on Chris Hurley on Wikipedia!! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kappa Pi Beta

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

Typical single-chapter fraternity, non-notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic Resonance Theory

Dynamic Resonance Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is at best a hoax, or nonsense masquerading as science. It may be a rant from a psychotic person. In any case, the references relied on do not support the text, and I cannot verify this theory any other way. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic experiments of this Theory has already been duplicated successfully in the Energetic Forum and are currently undergoing more intensive research. The effect of such open circuit has already been proved in the forum, further experiments are being done and results will be posted here.
--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (NOT Delete),
My appologies: I did not realize Wikipedia is only meant for reading and writing to by 'Qualified Scientists'.
Searches all over internet fails to yield results for 'Dynamic Resonance' except for an article in relation to such phenomena in biological cells - and eventhere it is called 'crazy'. YET: all the universe consist of this vibration/resoance/occilation. Therefore the "Dynamic Resonance Theory" does NOT step on any toes and does not exist in either the exact description nor claims until this posting.
NEVER and nowhere did I call for or refer to perpetual motion machine - this is not a machine, it is a very plain electronic circuit of which I would like to post the diagram, but can not find out how to add such thing.
I have added more information and reference. Unfortunately - and probably because this is not a 'normal proven well written scientific concept' there are not many possible references I can use. The current phenomena is based on unique ability of the 2N2222 Transistor and the rest of the electronic circuit which I would like to post if someone can explain to me how to add such JPG photo.
  1. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xatumZCta6g
  2. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=d8pUR9R9Sd4
  3. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pewG9lLer3k
  4. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MUZ9HJ-Vyd4
Thus gents, should you wish to delete, it is your option - but there is a void in your information with nothing else to replace 'Dynamic Resonance Theory' Corrie Lamprecht (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that a youtube video is proof of anything? #http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmK6uBi9PA Look! I proved someone can blow fire out their ears! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I am the one who said "Perpetual motion machine". I was referring to the fact that any circuit that can give a perpetual source of free energy can be used to power a perpetual motion machine, even if the theory itself is not about perpetual motion. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. The article has changed in a significant manner and the nomination has been withdrawn. The delete voters' concerns should have all been addressed at ths point or are not relevant due to the changed nature of the article. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

United States Office of the President-Elect

United States Office of the President-Elect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been recreated in spite of speedy deletion and application of speedy delete tags, so let's discuss this here. The present article appears to be motivated by a desire to attack president-elect Barack Obama. It is unencyclopedic in tone. There were at least two previous versions of the article, which were not written from a neutral point of view and appeared to me to be much clearer attack on Obama. Perhaps some kind admin can access the text of the previous versions to put this current article in context? I believe that this article is written by an author who cannot be objective about the topic. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Note I fixed the attacking wording and referencing. Tell me if it's okay. (NOT creator of article, patroller) Also, shouldn't it be redirected to: Office of the United states President Elect?(edit:boldly done) I do agree the article was created as an attack article.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • yeah, it was an attack at the beginning. Now it's fairly neutral in content following editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warion7 (talk • contribs)
    • You know you just admitted to writing an attack page, right? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      • it was written entirely per a foxnews article, of course it was slanted. didn't at the time of first publication realize it couldn't be based entirely on the tonal quality of one external article. current format is much better and encyclopedic. - --Warion7 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That makes no logical sense, if you can realize now it was an attack page, how could you possibly have not realized earlier, especially since the page was previously deleted. Not to mention you cite actually stated there is a bill that legalizes the office. However, per Wp:AGF, I'm just going to place a reminder warning template on your talk page to remind you to read and make sure the content you are placing up is not an attack page in the future as advice. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Neologisms, and Coatracks. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If it gets deleted it gets deleted. I'm new to this, still figuring the ropes out. I have no idea what the policies on neologisms, coatracks, or original research are. nor did i realize before i posted the article as an attack post that they weren't allowed. The article has been modified to state facts only. I think it should stay as there is nothing else pertaining to the subject here. --Warion7 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: Can someone file a bugzilla report for me? Sometimes when I click edit, I get a blank page and the message:"you have new messages" even though I don't when I am using the secure server.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • delete- unless better sources can be found than Michelle Malkin and Fox News. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The government paper cite on the office isn't enough to establish existence?! Also, I'm 100% sure I saw it on Cnn.com a long time ago when the sign first appeared, but I don't have the time to look for it/its probably down anyway. Found NYT article mentioning the office, so regardless of CNN, there is citations.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Since the government paper--assuming that we're speaking of the same one--makes no reference at all I can find to any 'United States Office of the President-Elect', no, the paper doesn't establish its existence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • it's gone for one reason or another. interesting process... learned a lot. thanks nojan. i'll probably try it again later. --Warion7 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, the usage of a term in the news media falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If you had just made a redirect to Presidential transition of Barack Obama nobody would care, but the article is just an attack on the uppity Mr Obama--how dare he conduct business like a white man?! Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Have you read the recent *fixed* version? Why would I purposely slander/allow slander of Obama when I consider myself Centrist-Liberal (international definition, see my userpage for political compass test results)?! Or did you mean warion's original usage?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This appears to be an actual government organisation and is now cited properly. The article could do with much more work, but it's on a valid topic and the content is OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Following the source cited for the existence of this 'United States Office of the President-Elect' shows no such term anywhere in the Act. In other words, the very title is Original Research. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism, original research, and violates WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based upon current revision, but expand. Neologisms are terms coined on a small scale in a limited venue. Obama has established this office and it has been cited in the mainstream media, not just the NY Times, but CNN, etc. This could also be seen as a precedent-setting measure (though we'll need to wait till 2012 or 2016 to see if the next president adopts it). I don't know what the status of the article was at time of nomination, but as it stands now it's fine. It needs expansion and more sourcing, etc. But the topic is notable enough, and has been covered well enough in mainstream media. Article needs, however, to be renamed Office of the President-Elect to conform with naming standards, if it is kept or a no consensus decision occurs. (Note: at present that form of the title is a redirect to President-Elect). I am curious how accusations that the title of this article is original research; has no one read WP:NOR? It's a prohibition on "new knowledge"; I fail to see how a term established by the upcoming president of the United States (or possibly earlier depending on other third sources) and already used by the media could possibly be considered original research. 23skidoo (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Okay, sure, it started as a bizarre little article that essentially said "This office may not legally exist. Also? This law said it legally exists." So fix the article. It's a real office, has been for years, will be for years. --John Kenneth Fisher (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note:The article was Office of the President-Elect, however I moved it since I felt it should have the country in the name of the article for disambiguity reasons. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Coatrack. An occasionally used office played up by partisan sources. Not much encyclopedic content that is not already covered by Presidential transition. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Presidential transition of Barack Obama, which links from Presidential transition and President-elect. It's certainly a legitimate topic, even if the title is too long to be a useful search term. When people see Mr. Obama standing behind a podium that says "Office of the President-Elect", and they don't recall ever hearing of such an "office" before, it's natural to turn to the internet (and to Wikipedia) to find out when this came about. It's an odd extension of change.gov and, hopefully, something that is never heard from again after January 20, 2009. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given that its legal basis going back to 1963, it seems a significant topic in its own right, with potential for expansion to put the main current reason for interest (Obama's transition) into broader context in ways that wouldn't be appropriate in the proposed merge targets.--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep in its present form. The original version was POV, and cited out of context even the Fox article, which was not as negative as the article then indicated. But this now has sources over the whole spectrum, including the Huffington Post.DGG (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. has enough sources now and is certainly notable since it's been covered more than once in major national media. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This organization has been around for more than 40 years. The article should, however, be named Office of the President-Elect of the United States as that is what the organization is named. L0b0t (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

World Sustainable Energy Days

World Sustainable Energy Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Article about non-notable conference. Borderline CSD G11 Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
comment: It was so easy to find the example I quoted that I think this AfD is destined to become WP:SNOW. Note that WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferred to deletion. How long do you think it would take you to improve the article to the point of unquestioned notability? --Philcha (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, of course... sigh, this one is obvious. In fact, I think that there should be a separate entry for the Energiesparmesse as well. How come the nominator thought that this could possibly be non-notable?? Most ridiculous nomination I've read here in ages. Tris2000 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Team Bangladesh

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

Notability of this organization is in question. I cannot find Reliable sources that back up the notability of this youth organization. Mentions in google usually refers to sports teams from Bangladesh or "team(punctuation) Bangladesh". I think that we can't dabify this as "Team X" like Team America since this phrase is not part of any sports teams from Bangladesh. Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed Ossoble Adde

Mohamed Ossoble Adde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same creator as Abukar Omarsson below with same problem, unsourced with great claims to notability but trying to sources leads to it appearing to be a hoax parading as a valid article. –– Lid(Talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WoodyRimShot

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

Putting videos of oneself on YouTube is not an instant ticket to celebrity, let alone Wikipedia notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Body jibbing

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. (G4), current version has even less info than previously deleted entry. Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Killer Instinct 3

AfDs for this article:
Killer Instinct 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a very short article on a video game sequel that may never exist. The article has no information from reliable sources, and the existence of the rumour of the sequel is unverifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ziizen

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

I cannot verify the existence of any 'Zii' religion. The text is very poorly written, and orphaned from other articles. It appears to describe mythology without using reliable sources. The entire article may be a hoax. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldar Ikanović

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Swiss second division is not fully pro according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rio Mei Long

Rio Mei Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Masō Kishin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hugo Medio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring Mao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magioladitis (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing here really referring to the game and do you think this game is notable? Do you know the release day at least and if any site/magasine reviewed it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SIGH* I already include link to Gamefaqs, but fine, it's Japanese-only game released in 03/22/96. How much it's notable? As much as Fire Emblem: Thracia 776. Sure, the article is barely refer to the game, but this is pretty much ignorant of authors. Note that heading suggest that the article coverage only mecha, yet there is pretty large section for characters. It just need to change direction to be article about game instead of plot. L-Zwei (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to a suitable list of characters--preserving most of the content. This deals with the problem of notability, since we have no greed upon notability standard for fictional characters. As for the rest, the dame is a sufficient source for the description, this is nowhere near the detail of a gameguide, recording the obvious is not OR, and there is very little plot summary, just enough for background -- and Ring Mao contains none at all. This answers every reason proposed here for deletion. Additionally, the group nomination is incorrect, as not all the reasons apply to all the articles. Besides that not all of them have and plot at all, Masō Kishin is already a combination article, not one ofn a single character. DGG (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the whole thing (or create a redirect and protect...). How many such articles have been brought or still remain to be brought to AfDs? None of the in-universe stuff is particularly notable or sourced. Isn't there a Super Robot Wars wikiproject to take care of the merging/restructuring cleanup of all this to follow the guidelines?--Boffob (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all exactly for the same reason all the other Super robots elements were deleted.I hope this is the last bunch of them. -- nips (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all as WP:GAMECRUFT. Just be thankful that we're not going through all the Pokemon articles instead. Marasmusine (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all: we have an agreed upon standard for inclusion, and it's WP:N. Articles like this, which are not covered by reliable third-party sources, can't meet this guideline no matter how much they are improved. Merging non-notable articles together does not create a notable article, at least not in this case. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. inclement weather (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon_Pulsifer

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

the person is not notable. just an active contributor. But his name can't be included in an encyclopedia Karthika.kerala (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an unusual debate, because at heart it is not about eliminating material from the encyclopedia, but about how to organize certain material. The weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure. Since this is fundamentally a question of how best to present the material, it is one that I feel is up to consensus to a degree. But this debate is flawed, because WP:AFD is not the place to have debates about content; it's the place to have debates about whether to force deletion of articles, typically over objections of the editors that work on them. Just as AfD is categorically the wrong place for discussions to delete sections or articles or to discuss rewrites of them, it is the wrong place for what I see as the debate that needs to happen.

I suggest that this be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Mangojuicetalk 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport

July 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A random list of unconnected events: The only thing in common is that they both took place on July 29 on rails. See WP:TRIVIA. Tavix (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following lists for the same reason.

January 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 2 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 5 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 13 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 2 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 28 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 26 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 26 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 2 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 13 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 14 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 13 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 14 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 16 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 26 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 28 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 2 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 4 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 5 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 13 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 14 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 26 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 2 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 13 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 23 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 25 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 26 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 9 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 15 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 17 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 20 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 22 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 24 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 1 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 3 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 5 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 6 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 7 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 8 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 10 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 11 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 12 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 14 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 18 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 19 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 21 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 27 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 28 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 30 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 31 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page break for discussion

NOTE: Don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to keep it. I am using this AfD to achieve a consensus on these lists only. Tavix (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with you, if someone thinks they want to keep this article just because there are other (date) in rail transports, I'll just nominate the whole lot. Tavix (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete It isn't even worth a category, let alone a list page.--Dacium (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I'm in danger of treading into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the remainder of the events, such as the birth of the chief mechanical engineer cited in the July 29 article, seem to be only remotely related to the purpose of the articles and are bordering on WP:fancruft. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sorting such events by year makes historical sense, since that bundles together things which are chronologically close in time, and the year things happen is far more relevant to history than the exact date. But this article elevates the date to greater importance than the year, and as a consequence, the entries on the list are only loosely associated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Note. Per Slambo's vote a few lines below, I have no objection to putting these at portal talk or similar. If these pages have a useful function for setting up the daily "this day in rail transport" on the portal page then that is a Good Thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Also per Sjakkale: Moving into a different namespace would work for me. Otherwise delete the whole lot. There is no July 29 in physics or July 29 in music either, and that's for the same reason that these articles need to be deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, horrendously arbitrary and narrow topic. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I am far from convinced of the merits of having this (and potentially 365 - including 29 February) similar articles. Their sole function is to enable people to determine what a given day is the anniversary of. However, is the nominator willing to bring forward AFDs on the whole tree, and CFDs on the monthly categories? If not, this must be a procedural keep, as ther is no point in deleting one article out of a series of this kind. I would guess there are 150 articles in the category tree already, and no doubt more arriving as I write. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Yes, I am willing to nominatate all of them, I just picked out a random one to pick out a consensus first. I didn't do it all right away because I don't want to waste time nominating all of them only to have them kept. Tavix (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this, and similar list articles, for all days and major subjects where there are more than 1 or 2 things to say. They are very useful for browsing, which is one of the key functions of an encyclopedia, and for a list, usefulness is a key criterion. The events are all significant, though it would be helpful to have an explicit criterion for this. Fowler was an very significant designer, well worth including, but that;s a content question for the talk page. DGG (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Is this really major subject? Please note that this is the only category of anniversary articles. Another thing is how would you set up an exploit criteria? It's just a bunch of things related to rail transport on some random date, here it's July 29. Tavix (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The items listed on this page are basically an archive of events that can be included on Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/July 29. The rest of the DAY in rail transport articles are also used in a similar fashion. Just because I haven't gotten back to this specific page since 2006 is not a valid reason for deletion. If deletion is the result, I would ask for time to copy relevant information to the appropriate portal talk pages (Portal talk:Trains/Anniversaries/July 29 in this case) so events can be switched out of the portal content periodically. Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • further comment as noted by others below; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sometimes used as an argument for deletion, so if we can't use it as an argument for retention, we can't use it as an argument for deletion. I repeat my request for time (perhaps a week) if deletion is chosen to copy relevant data to the appropriate portal talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Slambo. WP:USEFUL isn't an "argument to avoid", as some people claim; it's our primary purpose. If a page is sourced, verifiable, non-disruptive, has no BLP concerns and is potentially useful to someone there is no reason to delete it. – iridescent 17:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as essentially useless. There's nothing relevant about the fact that two events happened on the same day but in different years. There's also an issue of events not having one specific day. For instance, the Buffalo and Erie Railroad was incorporated:
Under special act of New York and general laws of Pennsylvania through articles of consolidation; dated May 15, 1867; filed in New York June 27, 1867; Pennsylvania June 28, 1867.
It doesn't seem right to include it in all these dates (and two states is by no means a maximum), but if it's relevant that one of these actions happened on a specific day of the year, it's relevant to all. It should also be noted that most sources will only give one of these dates, sometimes not the same one. (In this case I'd say "June 1867" for the date of merger in an article, but that can't be done on these pages.)
These are also a maintenance headache. When I create a disambiguation page, sometimes I come across links from these pages. I have been ignoring them while fixing other links, but I technically shouldn't be doing that. --NE2 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply, just to let you know, it says this in WP:NOTPAPER. "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion." You are free to interpret this another way, but I think that means you are not allowed to use that as a keep argument. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • deleting sourced material that is as another user put it "On This Day type comparison is a common feature of historical and contemporary works, in any connected field of interest" encyclical is contrary to the idea that set up wikipedia in the first place. If not disruptive. Agathoclea (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Its called Articles for Deletion, and these are articles. What is wrong with this? It isn't random either. Please tell me how it is. Also, I don't see how this makes Wikipedia stronger as it breaks MOS code through WP:TRIVIA. You must explain yourself more thoroughly because I don't see what your saying. Tavix (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to their respective pages on their respective dates. I.e. moving the stuff under July 29 in rail transport to just July 29. The information is notable enough to be kept, but the articles are useless and a waste of time, bandwidth, space, and memory to have their own separate, specialised, articles for them. Kortaggio (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, should the rationale for deletion be applied to the years in rail transport? Like this article? Kortaggio (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Things that happen in the same year are more closely related. But this doesn't apply to births and deaths, so 1797 in rail transport shouldn't necessarily exist, but 1897 in rail transport seems fine (I'd still remove births and deaths though, and maybe impose a limit on how important something has to be, since including every minor incorporation and opening will produce hundreds if not thousands of items). --NE2 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed 100%. Hundreds upon thousands of lists of minor trivia don't work really well. Tavix (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If you see my vote, (high up in the debate) you will see that I support keeping the articles sorting the events by year. A list of events by year are not loosely associated, because they are tied together by occurring at roughly the same time. The year lists can therefore aid a reader by keeping the various events which have happened in the history of rail transport in historical context and order. I feel that benefit is not present in the case of the date list. Timelines are often found in encyclopedias in some form or another, and if someone wanted to make a long treatise on the history of railways, then taking the events in chronological order, year by year, makes sense. Discussing things by date, and jumping from year to year, does not have the same appeal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator makes a big fuss of people should not be using other stuff arguments, and then makes references to the fact this is the only day anniversary category, as if no other stuff is any more of a bad argument than other stuff. I had no clue why Slambo might have thought these were not trivia, so I'm glad he turned up at the Afd without being asked, because the nominator certainly didn't appear to ask him why they might exist before passing, and then doggedly defending, his personal judgment of what is and is not trivial in this world. As we see, this content is used in a portal. As we are also surely all aware, On This Day type comparison is a common feature of historical and contemporary works, in any connected field of interest. I would hate to see outside journalists and publishers deprived of such a brilliant source of information. Changing these into lists by year misses the whole point by a mile I would have thought, nobody looking at these articles is looking for things close together on the linear timeline. MickMacNee (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • About other stuff exists, I don't like it at all. I don't see why you would get so upset at me specifically noting not to use it. Otherwise, I was afraid someone would try to keep the July 29 article because there is, for example, a July 31. (This was before I nominated all of them). About Slambo not being asked, since when does everyone have to be asked to come here? Everyone is automatically welcome to input their suggestions here, so I don't have to ask anyone to come here. If you have anything else to say to me specifically, please use my talk page. This is an AfD, it is not to be used to flame other users. Please remember to use good faith as I am trying to work on it myself. Tavix (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You didn't get the analogy, no problem. Anyway, everybody knows that asking Slambo why he thought this was not trivia was not required by policy but would have been a sensible move anyway, just to be sure they weren't on a total ego trip. You were lazy enough to not bother nominating all articles at once 'just in case', so don't even pretend you had any interest in mind but your own. If you think this sleight on your character belongs on your talk page rather than here, tough. MickMacNee (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Replies to some objections. In general, it does seem to me even easier to justify Events in Subject during Year, than Events in Subject on Day of the Month. There is a true connection between the items with Year--knowing the railways incorporated at a particular year indicates something. It is valuable both for study and browsing, while Day is valuable only for browsing on constructing "this day in..." tidbits, But people find such tidbits interesting, & we even put a list each day on the WP Main Page! That should settle the issue of the general view of whether browsing is enough justification for a list. In any case, there have to be items to include in a list . For Rail transport by Day of the Month there is (and considering the number of railroads, there should always be). As for what date of incorporation to use, what do we use generally in articles when there are multiple dates? I think it most logical to use the earliest one, for finding early ones is usually what people think more interesting, but if there's another standard, we can use whatever it is. We do need some guidelines here, and the people interested can work on them. It seems absurd to delete an article because some of the data that would go in it is imprecisely defined. And what's wrong with having 366 articles? objections based on the number of potential articles are NOT PAPER. As to whether its a sufficiently broad subject to be worth the trouble, considering the great number of rail-related articles here, this seems a good place to do. on that basis, I'd suggest football as the next field to get this full treatment. Browsing is a major valid use of an encyclopedia or other reference book. Our lists and categories should facilitate this every bit as much as purposeful navigatiotion DGG (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note WP:INTERESTING isn't generally a good reason for keeping an article. The reason that Wikipedia puts a this day in.. on the main page is different from keeping this day in rail transport because it contains material on a broad range of topics, not just narrowed down to rail transport which, in the least, is much narrower focus and harder to achieve noteworthy events on every day of the year. "And what's wrong with having 366 articles?" First of all, its not 366, more like 200. Whats wrong with have 4,000,000 articles on every event that happened this day in every topic you can think of. If we allow these kind of articles to stay, we open the door for possibly limitless trivia articles that would be impossible to maintain. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again, why are you excluding other stuff arguments, while simultaneously using other stuff arguments to back up your own argument? If x then y has always been a total nonsense of an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

*Procedural Keep Although nominator has included the entire set of articles, only the July 29th article and thosearticles chronologically between January 1 and February 22June 30 have been tagged with the notice that they are being considered for deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. All due respect, when it's appropriate to strike my comment, I'll do it myself. In the meantime, I'm happy to refactor it to reflect the newer state of affairs. Mlaffs (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Two reasons why I'm striking your comment. One is that it is factually inaccurate and second is that there are no policies stating that an article can be kept because a little template isn't in place. Tavix (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Three reasons why it was completely inappropriate for you to strike my comment. First, it was completely and factually accurate when I made the comment. It only became inaccurate because you acted on the issue that it raised, almost two days after the initial listing, and a day-and-a-half after adding all the other articles to the listing. Second, the deletion guidelines specify that all portions of the process must be followed, and that's regardless of whether it's a single or a multiple nomination. There have certainly been other instances where deletion discussions were closed because the nomination process was not followed correctly - that's why I said Procedural keep. Now that you've addressed that issue, you should have no concern that this should happen in this instance - you're welcome.
Those two reasons make your comment above factually inaccurate and so, by your logic, I should be striking it. I'm not going to though because, third, and most important, the Guide to deletion states quite clearly "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith — unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory commment about a living person." None of those three conditions exist in this situation. Once again, when it's appropriate to strike my comment, as it now would have been, I'll do it myself. Even if I didn't, I'd trust the closing administrator would have sufficient judgment to note that the problem has now been addressed and to weigh the comment accordingly. Either way, the last thing you should be doing is changing my, or any other user's, comments in any way - it's exceedingly poor form. Mlaffs (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I could point you to WP:BUNDLE, which outlines the steps that you're required to follow to list multiple related pages for deletion. Or I could point you to WP:DRV, which indicates that failing to tag a page for its deletion discussion could be considered a substantial procedural error that might justify overturning a completed deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that the keep arguments are more of a case of WP:ILIKEIT. I haven't seen any policy argument made in favor of a keep, and the decision has to be made based on policy. Unlike existing lists of what happened during a particular year in rail transport, where one looks at a development in the context of history, there is no point to arranging information by a day of the year. I can cite several policy grounds against it. Wikipedia is not a directory (in this case, it's not a directory of what rail transport events happened to take place on November 29 and which ones took place on November 30). Then there is trivia: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." Finally, there's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that what each of these articles is-- a list of unrelated events that happened to occur on "July 29" or "January 1". Using the July 29 article as an example, we have (1) a train station opens in Los Angeles (2) construction is finished on particular route (3) rail traffic is suspended (4) a directive is adopted. There are plenty of policies against this group of articles; on the other hand, the only policy I've seen mentioned in favor of keeping is "this is not a paper encyclopedia". Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Also remember to use good faith. This was a good faith nomination because I thought it didn't meet policy. You, on the other hand, bash me for this decision and use no policy of why this should be kept. Thanks for the backup, Mandsford. Tavix (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I think most of us are in agreement with the nomination and the policies cited. And I'm glad that this was brought up for a consensus discussion. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I apolgize if I seem a little hostile towards this nomination, but this isn't an issue of my favorite Pokemon being better than yours, or vice versa. We're dealing with daily anniversaries on a specific subject. Slambo and NE2 already explained why deleting and merging them would be wrong. ----DanTD (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Deleting and merging would be wrong because of WP:delete and merge. Merging would be wrong because the content already exists. Deleting would be just fine. --NE2 07:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You yourself already gave a good reason why articles like 1797 in rail transport shouldn't exist. All you have is the birth of two people who played a role in the growth of the railroad industry, one of which has an exact birthday, which is fine for July 29 in rail transport. And what is wrong with wanting to know the exact day the Golden spike was used to mark the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad, and other railroad-related events that happened on the same day? ----DanTD (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If you really want to know what day the Golden spike was laid down, you can use the Golden spike article and it would give you way more information than the May 10th article, plus you wouldn't know what article to look for if you didn't already know the date. That is what is wrong with it. Tavix (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If there were any on the same day, they should be listed in 1869 in rail transport. But there's only one entry for May 10 there, and only one for 1869 on May 10 in rail transport. There are others that happened on the same month and day of the month but a different year, but that's trivia and is not worth keeping given the need for maintenance. --NE2 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Keep Apart from the original article listed, none of the other articles were listed originally. I was in a neutral mind about July 29, but see the listing of other articles days after the original AfD as an abuse of the AfD process. It does not allow the full timetable for discussion, but shortens it considerably.

  • The other articles are the exact same type as the original article. There is nothing different about the other articles policy wise than the other one. You come from no position to keep the articles as you list no policy, but just blame it on my slight tardiness to get the rest nominated. That, my friend, is not a good thing to do as this was a good faith nomination and you think that you can get it kept because I was in error of nominating? How rude. Tavix (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
What is rude about that? All I'm asking is that the full amount of time is allowed for discussion. Using your example, an editor could nominate an article, and come the end of the five days, add a load more articles just before closing as "delete". You're not going to tell me that that is a correct use of the AfD procedure, are you? Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasn't 5 days, it was approx. 15 hours. You will still get the full 5 days to discuss. It is rude to suggest that an article can be kept for the reasons you suggest. Instead, aim to keep an article based on policies that has be set forth for articles. Yes, I will tell you it's correct, there is no reason to suggest otherwise. Tavix (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 01:50 to 22:07 is not 15 hours. I still say it is bad form to add in other articles after the discussion has been started. Editors who have commented on the basis of one article may be unaware that others are now included. All should be listed together at the start of the discussion, or a new discussion started for new articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The articles really are the same - you comment on one, you comment on them all. It's not like 1797 in rail transport vs. 1897 in rail transport. --NE2 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply for Mjroots That is why I said approx., I'm not in the mood to go back and get an exact time the other ones went up. I was busy that day (it was thanksgiving) and so I put the rest up when I had the time. 21 hours really doesn't make that big of a deal in the 5 days it takes for an AfD to go though. If you really think the editors who commented on this AfD will change their mind, why don't you BE BOLD and send them a little message. I'm sure none of them would change their minds. Tavix (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with Tavix here. Although I think they should all be kept, I can't imagine a decision to delete some of the pages but keep others, or that someone with an interest in one of the pages wouldn't be interested in the others. All a "procedural keep" would accomplish would be to mean having an identical debate in a couple of days time. Credit us admins with some sense occasionally; if the closing admin has any doubts, I'm sure they'll have enough sense to leave the debate open for an extra couple of days so every article has been listed for the full five days. – iridescent 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And although I don't understand how these articles are useful (not a policy btw), thank you for your agreement, it means a lot to me after trying to argue with so many people with their little antics. Tavix (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:TRIVIA clearly states that it is not a reason for removal or addition of information, just how to present it. If there is no other way to present valid and sourced information, lists are perfectly acceptable. Thus you cannot argue any nomination for deletion based on it. WP:NOTDIR does not apply to these articles, as none of it aims to forbid such lists as those proposed for deletion here. The arguments brought forth for deletion are mostly variations of "I don't like such lists", paired with vague-waving at some shortcuts that do not really apply to those articles but sound good to the casual observer. With no real policy-backed reasons to delete them, keeping is to be preferred. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that SoWhy quoted from the trivia policy. As NE2 notes, this is not a case of there being "no other way" to present the information, since each of these items is presented in the best possible form, as part of the year-by-year articles. Looking at the article for December 3, I would say that it is significant that the 20th Century Unlimited last ran in 1967, and hasn't run since. On the other hand, that the train's last run happened to be on the 3rd of December, rather than the 3rd of August, really is trivia. By now, you've seen all the reasons that we cite for having this type of article deleted, and you disagree on our take on policy, I get that. But I'll pose the question to you (SoWhy) -- what purpose do you see for having 366 articles on "this day in history" in any subject-- wars, politics, football, television, etc.? (I would add that the rail transport project stands alone in this type of specialized lists of anniversaries). We don't have anything against railroads, but the rest of us feel strongly enough about this type of presentation that the subject will likely come up again, whether for this or any similar new day-by-day projects. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Exodus Ministries

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

Non-notable church, only source is to the church itself. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cezar Lungu

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ndriçim Shtubina

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sajdi Guri

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Megan Rose Gedris

AfDs for this article:
Megan Rose Gedris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Last nom was closed no consensus. This person continues to not pass WP:N - the three blog and advert sites listed in her article are not reliable sources, and the only RS is the Curve (magazine) piece, which is only ~450 words. One fluff piece does not qualify for "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources". SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Not only is that piece about her and her work, she is being interviewed by that source. The issue of 1st vs 3rd person pertains to verification of article content, not notability. An interview is in fact being the subject of a secondary source, which directly pertains to notability. 462 words is far beyond "passing mention" or "directory listing." --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: There is really nothing in that interview that one can write a biography from. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dmusic.com

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

Non-notable website. No reliable sources available (as far as I have been able to find). COI advertisement. Maybe worth a mention on the DeviantArt page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Not delete.. Whether to merge or not can be worked out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RPMforge

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

Not particularly notable Oscarthecat (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep, or at minimum redirect to a page which explicitly explains the purpose and merits of each of the addon repositories for RedHat. I believe rpmforge is the most notable of them. A simple redirect to Fedora would leave the user little wiser. Also note the repository is important for Red Hat, CentOS and Scientific Linux, not merely the Fedora subset. It seems that rpmforge is being subsumed into something called rpmrepo, but the relations between the projects is badly explained. Wikipedia can provided a useful independant reference here.

Vicarage (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alejandro Alcondez

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

I nominated this actor for deletion a while ago, and my reasons as before are the same today, in that he is a non-notable actor/director/producer, ect. The previous discussion reached "No consensus" but the majority of the 'keep' votes all pointed to his 'lengthy' career as seen on IMDB. However, the majority of these films are all dtv movies with miniscule information, none of which would pass the notability requirements for Wikipedia. As one person argued, "If I make a low-budget film off of a digital camera, which I write, produce, direct, and star in, and release it to a very limited audience, does that make me notable? Just because I did everything on it? Where in WP:BIO does having multiple non-notable roles make you notable?

A lot of the article is unsourced, and a lot of it's fluff, as seen as in this sentence: "As an adolescent his spare time was used for reading and watching movies. He remembers telling his friends “one day you will see me on the big screen” soon after he was know as the dreamer. One afternoon Alcondez went to see a movie starring Mexican actor Mario Almada, it was then that he knew acting was his dream and his passion." I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Conflict of Interest in this article, as there was in a previous version that was speedily deleted. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. If the unverified facts mentioned by CyberGhost were deleted, I'd say that this is a pretty good article. He's not non-notable, he's created and starred in lots of films and theatre productions. Good quality writing, too. TopGearFreak Talk 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank all for your opinions and observations, on the issue of the article in question. First of all and according to you post, that the majority of these films are all "DTV (Distrubuted for TV??) movies with miniscule information", some of them I realize from what I found have been released in DVD format (like many other feature films from the past), and probably produced with that in mind but if you observe the quality of some of the films, they are pre-DVD era which may suggest that they were originally released for theatre in the 1990's and before for the Mexican market, along with other films of the same genre at that time period.

I did not state that all the films of this actor were made for the big screen and in the issue of notability, well there are hundreds of personalities that are famous and yet no one has bothered to post any information on them in the Net.

On the point of the "Low budget film with digital camera..." from what I’ve seen in the internet almost all of the actors on YouTube pages for this actor, are well know to the Latin Community including Alejandro Alcondez, which suggests a Budget of a lot more than the price of a digital camera and home editing equipment.

In reference to the "Fluff", I must apologize for the comment made, I know I read it in an article for a magazine some time ago, and because a can't make (find) a valid reference, thank you for removing that part in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia.

In the conflict of interest issue, I must again accept my inexperience of correct style of writing and I appreciate some pointers on how to avoid them but please and with all due respect this does not mean I have a conflict of interest issue. I will correct as needed.

On the DTV notability issue, this article is about this celebrated actor and not about his individual accomplishments or works. As I stated above some films apparently are (re)distributed in DVD format just as any other film from the past. The YouTube sources seem to have a wealth of information on this actor and his achievements, and the Blog referenced is from a well know artist/singer that verifies the information of the article in question.

In reference to the small number of google results, I honestly ignore the volume necessary for notability to be acceptable in Wikipedia, I just concentrated my efforts on the quality of the information I could find.

I would like to post some references from 3rd parties that include information on this subject matter. In reference to the DTV issue there is a film according to IMDB called "Cielito Lindo" which is soon to be released according to some of these sources:

Sound Post production the company is called Juniper Post In the IMDB

Backlotimaging partipated in the making of a Fanfare logo for Alejandro Alcondez Pictures which indicates the upcoming release of the film: which states the following: "It has been really exciting to work with celebrated Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Alcondez to create a new animated fanfare for his film production company. This new 3D animation will be attached to his upcoming American releases on 35mm."

Here is a partial reference of actors that are in the cast of the film "Cielito Lindo" some are know more than others but the fact is that they participate in the film mentioned:

Nicole Paggi Ilia Volok Nestor Serrano Adam Rodriguez Bernardo Peña David Castro Mariela Santos Alex Bovicelli Antonio Costa

Here's one more reference to the production and description of the film which some of the actors mentioned participate which states a lot of information about the film "Cielito Lindo" in spanish

Some other information I found on the net was from a news type website: in which there is a picture of Alejandro Alcondez with text that states the following (excerpt in english) “the kid on the right is a film and theatre actor Alejandro Alcondez in which some films have been reviewed in this website”

Here is one more that talks about one of his films referencing other works done by this actor: (english translation) Alejandro Alcondez “2004 Los Mas Buscados” with Jorge Reynoso and Fernando Saenz (ref. to some soap opera). Alejandro Alcondez resides in Los Angeles, Ca. since 1980 started his career 23 years ago with the theatrical debut “Damelas sin compromise” which in “Blanquita” Theatre in East Los Angeles in 1981. His debut in Film Theatre with well know veteran actor Mario Almada in 1988 in a film called “Impacto de Muerte.”

I would like to thank all for your patience. Cgomez007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN business term (0 Google hits apart from WP and scrapers), neologism. roux   16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to a request for clarification:
BTW Xiaoqing Liu, lead author of the CBPA paper, appears to be one of the heavyweights in QFD, see Google Scholar for "QFD Liu Xiaoqing". E.g. Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMM using QFD is very similar to CBPA. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--and I really don't say that often. I am convinced, after some googling, that the concept exists and that it is real and meaningful (if incomprehensible to me). The article, of course, is really very poorly written, by someone who knows exactly what he is talking about and cannot convey that to an outside audience--and has not looked at or edited enough WP articles to know what such an article needs to look like. Sorry Ivo, maar ik zeg het zoals het is--zo doen we dat in Amsterdam! Still, AfD is about notability, and this is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Article based on a single recent academic paper (primary source in wikispeak) that has one citation!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!! Promotional in nature. Show me that the concept/method is discussed in a secondary source (a book on software engineering), or at least covered in more than one sentence in a review paper, and I'll change my mind. Don't you love it when wikiexperts say keep reasoning "no idea what this is about, but it sounds impressive"?! You should also know that in computer science journal papers are generally less important than conference papers. Pcap ping 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your nicely sarcastic summary of my somewhat off-hand remark. I think that even in a computing-related discussion we could be well-mannered. As for 'promotional,' you are a long ways away from proving that the article author has anything to do with the research in question. But I'll bow down to your impressive array of exclamation points--how could I argue against such rhetorical force? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge / redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection

Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and trivial. While the individual titles are notable, the packaging and marketing of them as a DVD set is not. Prior precedent with Superman boxsets is towards non-notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is padded. Apart from the release date and the films included in the set, the info is unrelated. Star power is pointless trivia and the cameos, while well-known are not related. Info (included in collection) is better mentioned in each separate film article. - Mgm|(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the sources I had just added were removed by another editor because to read a few of them one had to do a free registration with "Access My Library". I will assume he removed them in good faith. I strongly urge editors at this AfD top assume good faith that they were supportive of notablity of this collection per WP:GNG. Any who think not can easily access them themselves and make that determination for themselves. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: After looking through Access World News, many newspapers do indeed report about this DVD collection with some reviews about its quality. However, the majority of the coverage is about Hitchcock's films in general and touches on each different film in the collection. I did not see anything more than reviews, and I think that a stand-alone article based on nothing but reviews would be severely limited. I've included some reviews at Alfred Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection, but it is not going to get any more substantial than these kinds of comments found there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1x1 music

1x1 music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. No assertion of notability. Sources I found are are few and very weak - , . The company existed and recorded some low notability bands, but there seems little to say about them other than that. SilkTork *YES! 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dereck Faulkner

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

Football player who never played in the NFL, ergo fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. Wizardman 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matchboxes

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that can establish any notability of this college drinking game. This was recommended by User:Kevin1078, who thinks either everything or nothing should be deleted. MuZemike (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: there seems to be decent number of Google results for "matchboxes" in combination with "drinking game," and, while none of the ones I looked at qualified as a reliable source, I'm not really sure how one determines notability for a drinking game. I also balk at the notion of Google as the sole determinant of notability, but I doubt anyone's going to write a book on this topic. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, in this 2006 AFD someone claimed it was listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "The Matchbox Game" which would make it at least more than your average made up game. Unfortunately, no one has been able to check that yet. I agree with the assertion regarding the title made in that discussion. Matchboxes should redirect to matchbox and the game located elsewhere if kept. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok, I misinterpreted your original statement. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia