The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now referenced and asserts notability seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Steel Corporation[edit]

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

Non notable company? Fails to assert any notability. SGGH ^speak! 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain's refs. Hard for a steel corp to be small enough to be non-notable.John Z (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Verfiable stub providing history & background. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now referenced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 12:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canon Sims Characters[edit]

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

This is a list of "characters" that do not establish independent notability from the Sims series. They are not really characters, but rather generic "units" given names and very basic details in order to make the games not feel entirely empty when they are loaded up. The games themselves have no actual storylines and the characters can be deleted and replaced in five minutes. They don't require any coverage in the main articles, so they definitely don't need a separate list. TTN (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As TTN said, none of these characters are involved in an epic storyline of any sort, and virtually any kind of backstory that they do have merely exists in the family bios which are rarely longer than a couple of four-sentence pages. —C. Raleigh (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The game works without ever playing these characters. Plus, if you do play these characters, you can theoretically change their entire "background" in five minutes of gameplay. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article consists entirely of in-game information lacking independent notability. This is a sort of gameguide of premade character templates. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while notability can surely be argued as has in the past, the fact is that this is nothing but plot summaries and indiscriminate information. MuZemike (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has indeed been argued in the past, the list of characters in a notable game is not a plot summary, and is not indiscriminate. Nor is it sufficient to play the game, so it isn't a game guide. Whether the game can be played without them is hardly relevant (except of course to show that this are not a game guide), and if they are generic, that would seem to be all the more reason for an article. They definitely don't require an article each, and a list is the way to deal with them, as usual.. DGG (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a point, but I think the debate is that while the game is notable, the pre-made characters inside it are not notable by themselves. Think of it this way: would someone who was less familiar with the game read an article to better understand the characters? —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I too have used the WP:PLOT shorthand in the context of games, but stopped because its applicability is not always clear. The related guideline specific to the context of video games is WP:VGSCOPE item 5. The former is a well established policy, and the latter is an implementing guideline which quite evidently has a weaker consensus. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to a list of Sims Characters. I agree that this particular article in its current form doesn't really work; however, a list of Sims characters if it includes only those characters that come with the game (and have impact on the metastory that seems to run through the series (the family trees between "The Sims" and "The Sims2" and such)... so not every family in the familybin or player created characters) could be a reasonable encyclopedic article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the Sims characters you'd like to see, already included in this list (I wouldn't know, since this list doesn't list the characters of the Strangetown neighborhood which I always play)? And does Sims really have a "meta story"? (I'd argue The Sims has no more meta story than a bucket of paint that says "you can paint your room red, here, have a brush".) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Precisely because this list doesn't include Strangetown, Desiderata Valley, and other neighbourhood's "canon" Sims. Yes on the "megastory" though most definitely not as fully details as some games. An example (though possibly not 100% accurate as I don't actually have the game in front of me) would be the relationships that exist between some families and the fact that the Goth's have grown up with Bella disappearing at some point between games. My understanding and meaning in this case of Metastory is sort of how the world has "evolved" without the interaction of a player (although not as extensive as the "metastory" between Knights of the Old Republic and Knights of the Old Republic 2 I see it in a similar vein). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N due to a lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. In fact, they might even have a lack of coverage in primary sources considering how thin these characters are: where they live, who they're related to, what they wear, and what skills they have. According to WP:GAMECRUFT, we don't just list every darn aspect of a character. Wikipedia is not the place to find out what characters wear or where they live. Randomran (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a game with a narrative. It's a game with a series of background pre-made characters about which one can say little, unless you include fan speculation (which is the bulk of this article). No, no, no, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very much borderline notability, and serious COI are problematic; but the complete lack of verifiability is fatal. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Scott[edit]

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

Individual of borderline notability, article however appears to be self-promotion by Dwscottjr (talk · contribs). User's only significant contributions are to this and Luck of the Draw (board game), a game he invented. role^player 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Adding references could make this article more notable. Further editing is needed. Braddaman1 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The claims of notability are not supported by the sources; and support for keeping the article appears to come mostly from the same person. — Coren ^(talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee (musician)[edit]

Matt Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural re-nomination after DRV produced consensus to re-list. See the DRV here. Black Kite 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources, no proof of notability. The musician has worked with a lot of other musicians, yes, but what has he done? -Nard 12:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not convinced that this article does'nt meet WP:BIO guidelines and should be retained.As his career expands the article will, without a doubt, improve. There are alot of refs that show notability. He has an IMDB for the movie "Bikini Island" that shows clearly a song called Shot Down"written and featured in that major movie release. He also wrote and has credits, including a song called My Sin, for the Divine Horsemen records listed. This musician is obviously published and shows notability.He also has a major indie release coming out in november of this year on HepCat Records( the same label as The Stray Cats and Britney Spears) with his band The D.I.'s produced by Chuck Reed of Interscope Records and Billy Zoom of X. He also has records on several labels currently selling the records he's on listed and accessible from the wiki site. There is no way this is'nt viable.(75.22.70.179 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No sources seem to support the notability claims. Even the IMDB source is a editable FAQ question so it can not be verified. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Matt Lee has album credit and contractual credit for co-writing and arranging the entire Divine Horsemen record Devil's River. He did the same for the D.I.'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.71.13 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• note If you look at this file at wikimedia commons, this image shows the inside liner notes and credits for Devil' river, The divine Horsemen record. It includes Matt Lee's name and publishing credit for his and all other songs on the list under so and so/D. horsemen because the publishing was split for their contributions among the band.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong Keep He seems to have posted absolute proof that he's published with album credit alright.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• keep, looks like there's some notability here. (Jayzee69 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)) — Jayzee69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Jayzee69. Closing admin please take note of the prior sock issues with the prior AFD. (Checkuser case) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only quote listed in the article is a copyright violation from BBC news. If anyone is active on WQ, they can contact me or any other administrator for the link to that article for the quote. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petraeus on Iraq[edit]

Petraeus on Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - This article got speedy deleted first ("Little or no context") but was recreated a day later by the same author. I figured speedy-ing it again might be considered too rude, so I'm bringing it here. I don't see why it has to exist and why the quote can't be added to the David Petraeus article.    SIS  23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The General said one thing in one instance, and all of a sudden that means that all of his prior statements are invalid? Ye Gods! I might as well create an article called Darwin on Evolution that included just the quote "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote, maybe. They seem to be verifiable quotes, so the article, under the title of David Petraeus, may be valid there. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like a POV fork. Per WP:NOTNEWS everything he says does not need to be in an article. Quoting someone is almost always biased as you are pulling out a small portion just to prove a point. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Bart133 and then delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Nick Dowling (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Bart133 and delete As the article says "This article is intended to serve as a receptacle for statements ..." Just a GF creation of a newbie who didn't know where it belonged.John Z (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:John Z for WP:AGF and thanks to User:Strikeout_Sister for allowing this discussion. I thought I might be able to circumvent edit-war paralysis by creating a new article -- compose first and worry about integration later. I see now that there is no alternative to the interminable struggle in the trenches. -- NonZionist (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Alexf⁴² 12:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic.(Jayzee69 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Melone[edit]

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

No references, the info fails WP:V. Google returns nothing relevant except the WP page [1]. Possibly a hoax or entirely non-notable, per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either a hoax, or "The Melone Crime Family" is so powerful that no one dares write anything about them.John Z (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced and therefore failing WP:N--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing about him in the Chicago Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune archives. Either a hoax, or someone way too obscure to be on Wikipedia. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no refs.(Jayzee69 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SAL does imply that it is possible this could be a useful topic for an article. However, that same guideline also states that stand-along lists much meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. The general feeling I'm getting from this discussion is that this list fails both. There is only one reference for the whole article. This close has no prejudice against a re-creation that is well-referenced throughout, or against tasteful inclusions in other articles, provided they are similarly well-referenced. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carriers in fiction[edit]

Aircraft carriers in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a loose and indiscriminate collection of trivia and original research. The fact that aircraft carries are mentioned in a piece of media is not relevant to the topic as a whole. Popular culture sections in articles are meant to briefly describe how the topic is used rather than just list every single little mention, so one or two paragraphs in the main article may be suitable. TTN (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur - delete this and save what's actually useful in other articles. Specific aircraft carriers' appearances might be mentioned in their own articles, generic appearances in the generic article. Apart from anything else this is a woefully incomplete and US-centric list. I hate to think how many times an aircraft carrier appears as part of a WW2 naval novel, for example .... MadScot (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article really doesn't have much to say about aircraft carriers, except that they appear at least once in a huge number of mediums. There are a few things where the carrier might be considered central, but not really, and so little to no encyclopedic value. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:No original research. No sources provided to demonstrate that the article's subject is verifiable. Instead, the article is a collection of I spy trivia with nothing to connect the various sightings. Original research is in the form of an implied synthesis claiming that these unrelated sightings demonstrate the existence of a meaningful topic called "Aircraft carriers in fiction". --Allen3 ^talk 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you really need to provide a reference that says aircraft carriers exist in fiction? (your comment on the verifiability of the subject)... that seems self evident when a piece of fiction contains an aircraft carrier. Or are you referring to the verifiability of the contents of the article, and not the subject? 70.51.9.124 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Verifiability is needed to show that the theme of "aircraft carriers in fiction" is not being debuted on Wikipedia. Unless these sources can be shown to exist, Wikipedia is the first place to connect these pieces of trivia and say they are related, an act of original research. --Allen3 ^talk 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fairly general notable theme of fiction. I generally prefer these as merged to main articles. No sources at hand but there should be some out there...will havea look later.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to proper recreation - per Allen3's excellent argument and analogy. While the topic of "aircraft carriers in fiction" may be a distinct subject of popular or academic interest, the article is presently just a directory of often-trivial appearances of aircraft carriers in works of fiction. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its not a matter of preference--the topic as such is notable, and the article appropriate as bringing together the material. If they apear in major works in a more than incidental role, they're proper content--and the question of which belong is for the talk page.DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't know Apparently I created this article - sorry about that. The only reason I would have done this is to remove it as a sub-heading from the actual article on aircraft carriers. So long as you can guarantee this fluff won't get dumped back in that article I don't particularly mind what happens to it! Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that "Aircraft carriers in fiction" is a trope that has been discussed or analyzed. As such, this list represents original research by synthesis. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

I think we have a problem with this kind of entries and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As an article, they fail, the "subject" is generally not notable, secondary sources are not available, and they more or less constitute original research either built without references, on primary sources, or on Wikipedia itself. It's not very likely the New York Times is going to publish something about aircraft carriers in fiction.

However, they are not articles, they are lists. What these lists do (well the good ones) is present trivial, non controversial information (do we really need to call that "original research" ?) that is otherwise dispersed in the linked articles in a thematical manner not possible with a category. I don't want to invoke an all too usual but flawed argument: "but there are many similar articles on Wikipedia that are not nominated for AfD" (normally followed by someone nominating those for deletion), however I do make use of such lists now and then, I find them useful (well some of them). Some arguments against the list here would probably apply to List of science fiction movies or List of active Royal Navy ships and I sure as hell wouldn't want those deleted.

Another point here is that while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I should note that such lists are not entirely indiscriminate, they group articles found within Wikipedia, a priori subjects deemed notable by the community or at least worthy of inclusion.

I believe we try too hard to apply policies and guidelines designed with articles in mind to a different kind of beast: stand alone lists. Unfortunately, the guidelines we have : WP:SAL, WP:LIST, WP:CLN are mostly style guidelines, we seem to be lacking (someone corrects me here, the closest thing I can find is WP:SALAT) a clear guideline stating criteria for inclusion of lists, maybe something that should be remedied.

Anyway, I believe this particular list is being unfairly judged through guidelines designed for something else. Is a thematic index "original research" or a useful feature ? Equendil Talk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I think it becomes original research and not a valid subject for a list when it's a list that basically no-one else has considered making. List of active Royal Navy ships for example is a justifiable list because there are actually books published which basically do nothing but provide exactly such a list (with some details on the ships, but basically, it's a list of ships). The concept already exists - all the WP article is doing is applying a list concept which has already been developed. I doubt very much the idea of listing all cases where an aircraft carrier occurs in a work of fiction exists anywhere outside this article. Hence OR, hence pretty hard to keep it.MadScot (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SAL seems to me to imply that original lists are not completely forbidden, but says "be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge", which I don't feel has been, or probably can be, done in this case. A consensus for outright deletion here will presumably give a rationale for not allowing these trivia to be added back into Aircraft carrier. William Avery (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A rather meandering list with nothing really cohesive to bind it beyond the most tenuous of connections. You could make a similar list for battleships, tanks, submarines etc, etc. There is nothing to show that this theme is a notable subject matter in fiction, no works of reference at all. RMHED (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock paper[edit]

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

WP:NOT; more specifically - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obviously a joke. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as joke article, per WP:SNOW. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Rock-paper-scissors or speedy delete Equendil Talk 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an obvious hoax article. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design (software engineering)[edit]

Intelligent design (software engineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unremarkable combination of words for a title, and a content that reflects that: two unrelated dictionary like definitions, one of which has been added by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) to add a reference to a book recently published (and partially the object of another AfD : Computer Theology). I don't believe there's anything to salvage here.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Equendil Talk 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Considered as a dictionary definition supported by a few use-cases, this is not encyclopedic. Considered as an article about the application of decision support systems to system design, this is an inappropriately narrow scope based on an arbitrary phrase used to describe some systems. Considered as an article about a theological concept, this is a non-notable spinout of intelligent design. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a sufficiently notable usage in this context. Even the references are really just using the two words in their original sense rather than as descriptive of any standalone concept. Mcewan (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as such. I feel like the title is deliberately misleading, given the topic under discussion. More context is necessary to establish notability, IMO. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MemoryArchive[edit]

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

Appears to be an online wiki community, but there is no indication of their notability, or of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Equendil Talk 23:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. News coverage is more than adequate to meet the notability guideline — Coren ^(talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandalpedia[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability independent of the Liberal Party of Canada. No sourcing, no evidence of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD A7 Equendil Talk 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and maybe per G10 or G11 as well, for good measure MadScot (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008. There are plenty of news sources about it but not enough detail for a separate article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008 per DoubleBlue. Seems to be enough sources ([2], [3], [4]) for its on section on the target page --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008. No evidence yet of independent notability, though it's gotten some publicity. For all that I'm a Canadian who dislikes Harper et al., do we really need to be giving free publicity to any particular party? I'd say that things like this press release only serve to vindicate my concern. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share your concern and it underlines the need to guard against POV but this website has been discussed in many major newspapers, magazines, and TV news and we must also guard against a POV omission. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for some reason the original reference to an independent news organization (CBC News) was removed and the article was sourced to a Liberal press release. It's received attention and the federal election article will likely get too long to be out of proportion. An alternative may be a Political websites of the 2008 Canadian election or something to that tune. -- Tawker (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Atkinson (actor)[edit]

William Atkinson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor with only minor, one-off roles that are often uncredited. — Scientizzle 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that he is notable. Tassedethe (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable, hence WP:LIVE issues. Equendil Talk 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No nontrivial coverage in a Google search, nor a Google News search. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana (film)[edit]

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation upon reliable sources confirming that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Our future film guidelines disallow articles on future films that have not yet commenced filming (see WP:NFF). RayAYang (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Equendil Talk 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 23:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as I like to fix Bollyworld film articles that show up at AfD... this one is simply too premature. Bring it back when filming has begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, author's username indicates that he's a 14 year old writing about his own unpublished fiction. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Slyme[edit]

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

This appears to be made-up. No google hits for author, character names or any other elements of the article. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf (computer gaming)[edit]

Nerf (computer gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nerf, as used in computer gaming, is an online slang term... perhaps a neologism... used only in computer gaming as far as I can find.

The article cites no sources, and I have been unable to find any I feel confident enough to cite as appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather than a gaming discussion forum.
Objecting editors, while insisting that there must be sources, have been unwilling or unable to cite them. With the rewrite by Protonk (talk) and other changes this is no longer true. sinneed (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the term may eventually enter the general language, I am very dubious as to whether this and a large number of similar terms belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There are adequate online jargon dictionaries and gaming-specific wikis for these online terms, I think. sinneed (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the fact that this is a "2nd nomination" even though purists will note that there never was a proper 1st effort. I was too new to wiki, and simply failed at the submission process. sinneed (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete better suited for Wiktionary or UrbanDictionary than here. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Says second nomination, but there doesn't seem to be a first. Equendil Talk 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Any online gamer will know what it means, and the term is used outside gaming communities now and then, there *might* be an article to build on that and all the associated drama, but right now it's just original research. Equendil Talk 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article significantly reworked and demonstration that an article can be built has been made. Equendil Talk 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, just a non-notable neologism. Martarius (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While the term seems to be a non-notable neologism, its referent is interesting even if it is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. As a Category:Video game design issue relating to Category:Video game gameplay, can anybody find a good article to merge this into? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, it would fit better under some kind of article under Category:Video game design rather than gameplay. It's something handled by developers and designers. A suitable article on the broader topic would be Video game balance or Video game balancing, but such an article does not exist. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable game term. See also here and here. The article right now is patent WP:OR, but I think that with a little bit of effort it could become something decent. Randomran (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Week keep per my partial agreement with the nom, but the verifiable sources found do indicate some notability of the term, just as with other Internet slang such as l33t (hate to imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); however, it's not much, and more would need to be found. Proper copyediting and addltion of sources can get rid of the WP:OR problems, but a complete rewrite would not be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Video game culture#Slang_and_terminology. I know this is a well-known bit of video game slang, but it doesn't seen notable enough (with enough secondary sources) for its own article. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Video game culture#Slang_and_terminology per ColorOfSuffering. It seems evident that there are insufficient reliable sources discussing the act of nerfing to warrant a separate article for it at this stage, but it has the kind of semi-notability and search term value (not to mention inwards links) to warrant a merge to an appropriate terminology article/section, and that's the best target IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that rewrite has established sufficient notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject is notable and has been discussed by sources. I'll check back with a few. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Randomman. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok.

1. Rubicite Breastplace Priced to Sell, a whitepaper written by tim burke (not the baseball player), a games researcher. Talks about nerfs coming down the pike and how they influence player actions.
2. Terranova posts Terra Nova (blog) is a games researcher group blog on the subject of virtual worlds. The blog itself is not RS, of course, but the individual authors are (double check to see, of course)
3. Raph Koster's website A dicdef, but Ralph Koster Raph Koster (helped make Star Wars Galaxies) does a lot of work in the field of virtual worlds.
4. Owned: Finding a Place for Virtual World Property Rights in the Michigan State Law Review defines and explains "nerfed" in the contest of property rights.
5. Designing Virtual Worlds, page 305.
6. Julian Dibbell talks about it in his book, Play Money
7. In the New York Times talking about player protests after a nerf in AO.

• I think that's enough for now. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten Protonk (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point to this as a productive AFD that is a true discussion, not a vote. Instead of people blindly asserting back and forth and avoiding each other arguments, people actually address each other's arguments with evidence and policy. The fact that Protonk took some time to rewrite the article is a huge bonus. I'm just impressed that people wasted less time jumping down each other's throats, and more time actually addressing the concerns. Randomran (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't followed enough of these AFD things to know if this is unusual. It has certainly been interesting, and it has resulted in some valuable information for me. I think the rewrite by Protonk (talk) is excellent. I don't know if I am entitled to an opinion, since I started the whole thing, but aside from the "Does this kind of thing belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia?" question, I think the article is now an example of a "real" Wikipedia article. I have no idea what forum might be appropriate for the larger question... or even if it is worth wider consideration. I thank everyone who has "voiced" an opinion so far, and in advance those who still will. sinneed (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are interested, there is a Request for Comment on that issue(broadly): Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to a solid, boldface keep after said rewrite and improvements. Definitely now meets the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after some excellent sourcing and rewriting, a notable concept which is now treated broadly and cited. Someoneanother 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — after a good rewrite, it suitably demonstrates its notability. Kudos to Protonk. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From the German language Wikipedia (and no, I never realized they were crosslinked *blink*), some possible additional sources:

1. Donna Gibbs / Kerri-Lee Krause: Cyberlines 2.0: Languages and Cultures of the Internet. James Nicholas, Albert Park (Austr.) 2006, ISBN 1-875-40842-8, S. 180
2. Jessica Mulligan / Bridgette Patrovsky: Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide. New Riders, Indianapolis (Ind.) 2003, ISBN 1-592-73000-0, S. 280-281: "Bug-Fixing versus Nerfing" sinneed (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inside My Notebook[edit]

Inside My Notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future debut album from a non-notable artist. No details, no release date, no label known. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The only google hit is the WP page[5]. Nsk92 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN album by NN artist. Possibly advertising to get label interest. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC horribly. Equendil Talk 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobility and verifiability issues for both the album and musician. The creator had inserted a release date of 2016 for ridiculous crystal, AGF. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable album from a non-notable artist.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to the AfD participants: the article's creator, User:JStunner55, keeps removing the AfD tag from the article[6][7][8], in spite of several warnings to stop. If you happen to see the AfD tag removed again, please restore it. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pornocracy (government)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced material and redirect to Pornocracy. We66er (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NEO and invoking WP:SNOW. Redirection is not useful as title is not straight forward. Equendil Talk 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goofy. Odd, there appears to be a bug in the closing script; my reasoning didn't get posted originally. Anyway, there is no consensus to delete the article, however there also does not appear to be a consensus to overrule the previous AfD's closure. It seems that the merger tag was removed when nothing had been done to undertake the merge and it wasn't apparent that this was an AfD decision ([9]). Therefore, I am sustaining the old closure, and making it clear that the article is to be merged within one month or it may be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy holler[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable sound effect, used in a few dozen Disney movies and hardly at all outside the Waltpire. Few reliable sources. There have been plenty of stock sound effects used throughout the years - this one is hardly the Wilhelm scream, or even Castle thunder for that matter. Previous AfD closed as merge, unsure exactly why this was undone. Action Jackson IV (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kizor's rationale in the first AfD. I'm pretty much in agreement with him. JuJube (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Ok, this is basically WP:original research, then again, the subject is not academic material. Somewhat culturally notable, not ephemeral, article is entirely non controversial, content is more than a stub, and we have no trees to save here. Equendil Talk 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Goofy. Apparently, this is something that was sometimes heard when Goofy cartoons were made in the 1940s and 50s. Though there's some indication that YAAAhoohoohooey has sometimes been repeated in later Disney cartoons, nothing to indicate that this ever caught on as a catchphrase outside of wonderful world of Disney; or inside it, for that matter. Even Yabba dabba doo is just a redirect to Fred Flintstone. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the previous AFD. The article contains no sources to suggest it has achieved the notability of the Wilhelm. It's definitely notable and worth referencing in the context of the article on the character, and/or an article on stock sound effects, but I don't see independent notability and I don't see anything to suggest the previous AFD decision should be overruled. 23skidoo (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this list is even merged, Wikipedia risks losing precious data about this sound effect. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing is ever really lost in a merger, unless it's merged to an article that is later deleted. And the article about Goofy is not likely to ever be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wholly WP:OR. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Goofy is notable. So is his "voice".(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent K[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Men in Black (comics)Men in Black (film) as it doesn't satisfy notability, as it doesn't provide any real-world info. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have in-world articles about characters in novels, so why not have an article about a main character in a large film franchise? Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable. In this case this is a character who led two major motion pictures and a highly regarded television series. 23skidoo (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Delete and) redirect to Men in Black (film). Violates WP:NOT#PLOT in its purest form and is not needed as a spinout at this time (plot is already summarized in the film articles). Would be okay as a search term though. – sgeureka ^t•c
• Keep He's one of the two major characters in the major fictional series. All reviews should provide some discussion of his role. Principal characters in major fiction are notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the character is notable. There is plenty of coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Men in Black (film) has spawned a TV series, novels, a sequel, and a video game. Because of the bounty of popularity and spin-offs, there is a "likelihood of expansion," and because of the secondary sources, I don't believe the article "requires excessive plot detail and in-universe information" (per WP:FICTION). --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Pug[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment in Agent K AfD. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This article actually gets quite a lot of Google book hits and thus should be kept. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Men in Black (film). The lead and the Animal actor section (although unsourced) may be something for the film article, the rest puts WP:UNDUE weight on plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and doesn't qualify for a spinout (yet). Would be okay as a search term though.
• Seems to be worth a weak keep. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't have been at all sure, except for the references presented here. But if Stifle thinks an article of this nature notable enough for a weak keep, how can I argue otherwise? DGG (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the better-remembered characters in a pair of blockbuster films (and somewhat lesser-known TV show). Press coverage does indeed exist, such as this jokey USA-Today interview. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Starblind's link. Independant sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ffm 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent J[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Men in Black (film) as it doesn't pass notability criterion as it stands. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's the main character in a popular series. JuJube (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment in Agent K AfD. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as a main character I think they are ways to improve this article. I didn't do any research but I think someone can find real world information somewhere and add it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reason I gave for the Agent K article. Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable. Two major motion pictures and a television series syndicated worldwide constitutes a franchise and J was a lead character in all three. 23skidoo (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:FICT say that "Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable", so I assume this is your personal opinion. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Delete and) redirect to Men in Black (film). Violates WP:NOT#PLOT in its purest form and is not needed as a spinout at this time (plot is already summarized in the film articles). Would be okay as a search term though. – sgeureka ^t•c
• Keep As above, one of the principal characters in a major fiction, will be covered in sources--if even Pug is, he surely will be--, and presumed to be notable as are all major characters in works as important as this.DGG (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CS1000[edit]

CS1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article, with advert like features removed, is a mere one line article on a patched IP PBX with no assertions of notability. SGGH ^speak! 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too little context and it isn't much (if anything) more than a bare dictionary description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the above-stated reasons, and the fact that it's just confusing. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 08:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Infinite monkey theorem. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Monkeys Typing[edit]

One Million Monkeys Typing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ad-style self-promoting nn web article. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising. Redirect title to Infinite monkey theorem. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It could possibly be kept with major cleanup. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea...what cleanup do you think it would entail? I wouldn't like to see this article go down the poop-chute, but as it stands now, it's headed that way. 67.220.16.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry...forgot to log in. Actually from BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Infinite monkey theorem. Fails CSD A7. Equendil Talk 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Infinite monkey theorem--Matilda ^talk 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close (non-admin closure) — The first AfD nomination is still open. Please discuss the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, which has been relisted the same day as this. MuZemike (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West[edit]

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

"The College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It there a reason why this is here while the first nomination is still open? MuZemike (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as blatant hoax and possible attack page. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffwich[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I had some trouble verifying the references. For example, there is not entry in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary according to their online search page; I can't find it in the print edition of the Concise OED either. The quoted Pepys diary entry (25 October 1668) uses a different word. Part of the text is copied verbatim from the cunt article. HaeB (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Strongly suspect its made up. The talk page just has the word "Awesome" which is somewhat suspicious. User hasn't even bothered to do a proper edit on the apparent source article - How is "The Country Wife" wordplay for "jiffwich"?? MadScot (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable or even speedy as blatant misinformation (CSD G3). It is certainly not in the Oxford English Dictionary Online. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems to be copied from somewhere, but I can't find where. Blatant misinformation; probably made up. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as utter bollocks - and probably an attack page, too. The page was largely identical to Cunt, with a few words changed here and there (the reference to "Gropejiffwich lane" was a giveaway). Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kearney[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability beyond youth caps (on which there is a consensus that they do not confer notability) and nothing to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find any significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, only one article from the Irish Herald and one from setanta with him discussing his club, and also fails WP:ATHLETE. Basement12 (T.C) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep pending the outcome of this discussion. Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of appearances --T-rex 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in FAI Premier League - highest level of football in Ireland. We established previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer) that such players are notable. Also there was a discussion recently on whether such players should be deleted in WP Footy that appeared to be unanamious in conferring notability on such players. Nfitz (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - then this needs to be laid down in a set of clearly understandable and accepted guidelines. Similar problems were brought up with this AfD. Notability criteria for football players are an absolute mess with little consistency between cases (as the very example of a keep you give above itself gives examples of articles deleted). At the moment accepted wikipedia policy does not allow for the subject discussed in this AfD to have an article. Basement12 (T.C) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that we established that such players are notable in that AfD is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. There was another AfD at around the same time which ended in delete. WP:ATHLETE demands "fully professional league", not "fully professional league or semi-professional top divisions". пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a fortnight earlier, and didn't get as much discussion - looks like everyone who said Delete also chimed in on the later discussion - and with the later discussion on WP:FOOTIE that seemed to be unanamious in keeping these articles, I'd have thought that using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" was a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'd have certainly spoke against it had I known about it. Basement is correct - entire thing is a inconsistent mess.Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we've established absolutely nothing - he does not play in a fully professional league, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE, and that's all I care about. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He DOES play in a full time professional team. The League of Ireland has never been a fully professional league but this does not mean player articles should be deleted. Plays in the highest level of football in Ireland. Already established previously in that such players are notable. Also criteria needs to be changed as this is popping up too often. There are almost 1200 LOI players here. Are you going to delete all of them? Number 57 needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He might play for a fully professional club, but WP:ATHLETE clearly states that it must be a fully professional league. We have not established that such players are notable, and the fact that this keeps popping up does not mean the criteria needs to be changed - if anything it means that more people need to know the guidelines before creating articles. Also, I suggest you read WP:NPA before commenting again. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAA players would be kept if they have enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and would pass WP:ATHLETE under the principal that they play at the highest possible level. The problem with football players who only play in Ireland is that the League of Ireland is not the highest level of competition, if the player is good enough they move to England (or Scotland in some cases). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Liam Kearney is well known across Ireland, and he is as well known as the GAA players and tell me Number 57 are GAA players paid? You find that out and then tell me if a professional player in a semi-professional league is better than amateur players in an amateur game? And they are all just as well known. 6 million people have heard of Liam Kearney, so what more do you have to know about him?--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk · contribs) has almost no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 million people have heard of him (or in this edit you claim that 25 million people have heard of him)? Can you provide facts to back that up, because to me that just looks like a ridiculous claim to make. In addition, telling me to "stay away from Irish football articles, if you know what's good for you"[10] is not exactly WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While I have a lot of sympathy with the Keep view, in that WP:ATHLETE is flawed if a single game fourth-tier player (or even in the Johnstones Paint Trophy) in England is more notable than a top-tier player in the likes of Ireland and Estonia (even if they are playing Champions League), it is current policy so I have to go with Delete - fchd (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is policy to delete professional footballers who play in the top tier of Irish soccer it needs to be changed and as per Nfitz. BigDunc^Talk 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to change it go ahead, but for now the policy is very clear - he doesn't play in a fully professional league => he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say I think anyone who has represented their country is by definition notable, and as far as I'm aware, this has always been considered to be the case...' on the talk page of the notability article, this footballer has represented his country at various levels. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about full internationals - as I stated in the introduction to this AfD, he has only played at youth levels and it has long been consensus that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • | In relation to facts, yes I can. At 6 million I was talking about the island in which he comes from. The 25 million is in relation to the rest of the world.--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the question that needs to be asked is this;"Is someone likely to look this guy up on Wikipedia an expect to find information on him?" I would say the answer is yes, he is a player competing at the highest level of the game in what an english speaking country. Now at the moment the guidelines don't allow for his, or similar articles, to be kept on Wikipedia. However that doesn't mean that the rules on the notability of footballers don't need changing, I for one think that they do. Basement12 (T.C) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless somebody adds references or links to the article that show he passes WP:N. The only external link on the page at present is to Cork City FC, which is not sufficiently independent of the player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Change the policy. Again I ask are you going to delete 1200 LOI players? Also dont be so sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't attempt to !vote twice -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the current LOI players who have articles meet WP:ATHLETE because they have played in fully professional leagues. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we are going to delete all these players, we should really start at the bottom with players from Finn Harps or UCD, who not anything as well known as any of Cork's players.--86.41.94.81 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter where we start, if they don't meet the criteria they don't meet the criteria regardless of who they play for. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ugen64 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per what exactly? I don't see any rationale behind the keep !votes other than WP:ILIKEIT and some nonsense stats on how many people have supposedly heard of him. There is no evidence to suggest that he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Change the policy. Gone beyond a joke at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and try and change it, but for now it's clear that he fails it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- In less than half an hour of searching, I found and included five reliable sources and I'm certain I can find more. Liam Kearney clearly meets WP:N with or without WP:ATHLETE. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the added sources clearly meets the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G10 —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeover travel[edit]

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

An account of the author's unfortunate experiences with cosmetic surgery in Bolivia. Original research. Jll (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Until I saw this, I thought my vacation in Schenectady was awful. Mandsford (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing of value. We66er (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:IceCreamAntisocial has tagged the page for speedy deletion as an attack page, which is probably what I should have done instead of listing it here. Jll (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - not really an article --T-rex 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Zero encyclopedic value. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G10 Basically an attack page. so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fratire[edit]

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

Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. It appears this has come up before, early this year, and the consensus was delete, but the article was never deleted, and there's no indication either on the page or in its discussion that it was ever nominated, which makes me suspect foul play. Twin Bird (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article was deleted, but it was re-created a month later. Also, note that you haven't used the AFD templates correctly. -- intgr [talk] 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I've corrected the mistake on this template to allow discussion to proceed on this Afd. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment below) Delete - as non-notable neo. Same article was previously deleted by Afd — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I became aware of this debate because CactusWriter wrote to me about the possibility that this article had been re-created in February (against policy) after the January AfD. If an admin had become aware of it in February, it probably would have been speedy deleted as a G4 (repost of deleted material). But now, since it has existed since February and many editors have contributed, it probably deserves a fresh shot at AfD. I'm somewhat familiar with the Tucker Max article, and there is a sense that this area contains a bit of self-promotion. Nevertheless, the regular press coverage (or major blog coverage) that's included in the current article suggests there is a real phenomenon that might deserve coverage under some appropriate name. If 'fratire'is not the best name, can someone suggest an alternative? This is only a Weak Keep because of concern about WP:NEO, though the present article content is informative and interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most sources seem to be from Tucker himself. Isn't he what the genre is supposed to be about? It all seems like non notable neologism to me. --Banime (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am striking my previous delete which was based on the references to fratire being confined to a brief period of 2006 when the neologism was born and (I assumed) died. However, on a further search, I find continuing references to it in many university newspapers such as here and here as well as this recent editorial in the New Statesmen. Commercial sites like Amazon.com which use it as a category and trendy blog portals like Gawker.com define a section with the term. I haven't checked JSTOR, but I suspect there are a few scholarly papers written in the journals. Most articles still use quotes around fratire indicating a lack of standard acceptance, and the entire fratire genre may soon die the death of the typical trendy cliche -- but at the moment, there does appear to be enough discussion about it to warrant keeping this article. CactusWriter | ^needles 05:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I turned down the {{g4}} deletion because the references cited suggested the term meeting the threshhold of multiple nontrivial coverages in reliable sources. I see the reluctant usage by some writers in the press, but that reluctance could simply be their somewhat ambivalent feelings towards the term as it could be their suspicions that it might not be a valid concept outside of its originator(s). However, that might be considered original reasearch, my attempting to decipher the intentions of writers. The term redneck has had its popular meaning revised and/or altered due in no small part to comedians such as Jeff Foxworthy's skits, so deliberate introduction or redefining of a word by a writer of any sort causing wider usage is outside the discretion of notability. (Hope that makes sense.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.I believe I created this article a while back. I hate to do this but the assertion that most of the sources are from Tucker is just plain false. And I think again, a literary genre that premieres on the front of the New York Times Style section seems like an obvious candidate for a wikipedia page to me. Metrosexual isn't exactly a current trend but it's page still exists and rightly so. It currently has 9 sources (plus the additional ones that Cactus added) including Time Magazine, NYT, and a series of pieces from the Huffington Post. For those of you asking for deletion, what else do you feel that this article would nee? TheRegicider (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.i dont think this is a notable genre just because it's mentioned in the nytimes in one time. the huffington post is the other site that mentions fratire, but that's not a reliable source. sounds just like a vanity moniker for 3 or 4 barely notable authors Theserialcomma (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Huffington Post is considered a leading news source for political commentary and reliable for editorial content - for which the article uses it as a reference. Besides the NY times, the article also contains commentary from The Guardian/Observer, National Public Radio, the Financial Times, the New Statesman and further reading in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable little neologism with no significant track record as yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ren and Stimpy[edit]

Music of Ren and Stimpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Last AFD closed as no consensus, still no sources or explanation of why this is important. Mr.Z-man 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Synthesized list, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial intersection. no sources available --T-rex 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup. Music is an integral part of the show. ShipFan (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what people said 10 months ago. The massive lists were removed, but virtually no actual cleanup was done and no sources were added. Mr.Z-man 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Author has been username-blocked by Edgar181. Blueboy96 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Lyons[edit]

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

not notable. unsourced. COI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This seems eligible for eligible for WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteowl Drop That[edit]

Whiteowl Drop That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was prodded previously for failing WP:MUSIC by being a non-notable mix tape. The PROD was later removed. I agree with the original PROD, and believe that this is still the case. Rockfang (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mixtapes generally aren't notable, and I see nothing that makes this one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. We66er (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Should have been speedy deleted in the first place. Darimoma (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It couldn't have been speedied. None of the general criteria seem to apply. The only article criteria that seems to come close, is A7, but that "...applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on."--Rockfang (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jive Aces[edit]

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

Notability - It's been tagged for notability for a year now, and the only things anyone's come up with are self-published reviews (and that I mean by self-published authors, not reviews published by the band), some club they play at every Friday calling them "The UKs No 1 [sic] Jive and Swing Band" and unsourced claims of them having worked with Van Morrison, Count Basie and John Travolta. I've done some Google searches, and can't come up with much other than self-published sources or other non-reliable sources, one article about how some members of an audience at one of their gigs in Derry were upset that they were pushing Scientology, and the Derry city council page about the award. I've also done a Google News Archive Search, and have come up with 122 hits, but they almost all seem to be either Jive Aces promotional material or promo material for jazz/swing festivals they've played at. A couple of exceptions - a couple of letters to the editor claiming they played very well, and a Guardian article briefly mentioning that the Church of Scientology allegedly used them to sweeten the City of London police. In all, they don't seem to have significant coverage, and so don't pass WP:NOTE. Darimoma (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage. This band have been pushing their message all over Britain and further afield for several years, but nobody seems interested enough to write about them, so we shouldn't have an article here. They have certainly performed extensively (I've seen them playing on the street in my local city centre) and have several releases, but in this case I don't feel that's enough. If significant independent coverage came to light, that would change things.--Michig (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Life (manga). — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumu Shiiba[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the manga. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability outside its fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real-world notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Contra the nominator's assertion, it is quite possible that third-party sources talk about this character, as she is the lead in a series intending to be socially aware (read, shocking) that has been adapted as a live-action tv drama -- precisely the sort of thing that conservative commentators love to pontificate about. Such commentary, however, is likely to be in Japanese. I strongly suggest we get some people from the Japan WikiProject in here for an assist. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article certainly needs improvement, being the main character in a manga and a live-action tv drama is a definite indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect to Life (manga), all the character info is there. The subject isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Knows[edit]

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

Article seems to be more about Boz than the album so possibly a db-bio speedy candidate. Overly praises the artist, no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ros0709 (talk • contribs)

• Delete The charts cited at the bottom aren't major music charts, and the page is overly peacock-ish. The artist doesn't seem to actually have a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - album by a non-notable music group --T-rex 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pick up your coat on the way out. JuJube (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West[edit]

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

Contested prod, basically because "the College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable. Fram (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CFB:COACH and points below:

1. Nominator appears to be "forum shopping" -- editor admits to not liking the resulting discussion on the talk page and wants to try again. By itself, not so much--but mixed in with the rest, worth noting
2. Nominator failed to notify other editors about the re-nomination.
3. Nominator openly states that the issue is with CFB:N and the discussion should go there, not on this particular article. Why this article? Why this coach?
4. Nominator says that CFB:N is in direct violation of WP:BIO and WP:NOTE but does not state how that violation occurs. We would be thrilled to discuss at [{WP:CFB]]!
5. Nominator states "There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person" -- WP:GOOGLEHITS -- offline sources do indeed exist, as exist for all college football coaches through the massive ammounts of record keeping in the media. Just because you can't find it on GOOGLE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and football coaching records from 1949-1952 fit into that historical category. Google and other search engines are useful tools in determining notability, but are not the only rule. Even for modern-day players, it is highly unlikely that a first-round draft pick at offensive line will be written about through traditional news and web channels.
6. "His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable": Specialist Topics are often not well known - Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. He was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order. To the untrained eye, yes one college football team can look a lot like another. However, each week rankings and standings are modified based on win-loss records, performance, computer analysis, and even sportswriter and head coaches opinions. At all levels of college football, team "A" defeating team "B" can dramatically affect team "C" in conference championships, weekly rankings, invitations to bowl games and/or bracket seeding in tournaments. Even ESPN.com ranks a bottom 10 every week during the regular season. In the great scheme of college football, there is no such thing as an "unimportant game" during the regular season. Additionally, detailed historical analysis continues on games that have already been played.
7. "and there are no other facts which would make him notable" except that he was a head coach for three years in college football, an amateur sport at the highest level. Consensus has repeatedly supported notability for this accomplishment.
8. And for all the other reasons on the talk page--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To quote from CFB:COACH: "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." Quite aside from that I feel completely confident that Paul McDonald's assertion of how important every college football team is might not be shared by the average football fan in reference to a program that only last year started Division III football, it is scarcely forum shopping to point out the obvious and ongoing fact that the various Wikiprojects have not, yet, been given the authority to write notability guidelines that overrule WP:N, WP:ORG or WP:ATHLETE. Beyond that, I've no great confidence in their ability to set notability criteria if they assert that every coach who has ever coached a college game is notable, or that any level of college football below NCAA Division I is the "highest level" of amateur sport in that field. That's not "setting" a thing; that's declaring that everyone is notable, and that's an end run around WP:N I doubt many Wikipedians would find acceptable.  RGTraynor  16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And to address a couple other of McDonald's points:

1. Alerting Wikiprojects of pertinent AfD discussions is a courtesy, not a requirement.
2. Why this article? Quite aside from that this tiny school with no history of NCAA football at any level makes a lot better case for non-notability than a contemporaneous coach at Penn State or Harvard? If you run into an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, it's suitable for the deletion process, period.
3. Per deletion policy, it is explicitly the duty of editors who wish to save an article to provide reliable sources. We cannot just assume that such sources exist.  RGTraynor  16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Yes, the essay is not a policy or guideline. And yes, this year Geneva College will play in NCAA Division III, and I think (but am not sure) that the previous year Geneva was an NAIA school. But that is now. This coach was at the position from 1949 to 1952--before the NCAA began to divide into divisions, and the school was an NCAA school at the time. So without question the team was at the highest level of amateur sports at the time. While today, the program may be performing at a lower or lesser level, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It was? Have you any evidence of that? That aside, I just took a close look at the talk page for CFB:COACH, and realized that, in point of fact, only three other editors even commented on it besides yourself, one of those editors pretty much uniformly panned them, and no one else seems to wholly concur. You seem to be conflating lack of comment to Wikipedia-wide consensus to overrule WP:ATHLETE, and that's pretty startling.  RGTraynor  16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Read the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Stevens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam B. Taylor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches -- You will find much more than three editors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* None of those are discussions of your private notability essay. In the case of Dahlene, it is a heavily sourced article for the coach of a major program who wound up being a college president, a post that has been held to be de facto notable. In the case of Moulton, the nomination was withdrawn because he was an Olympic athlete, another de facto notable bit. Taylor had broad notability outside of football. Wright was inducted into the US Track and Field Hall of Fame. And so on and so forth. Truth be told, the thread linking all those AfDs are the passionate Keep votes made by yourself, User:JKBrooks85 and User:VegaDark in almost every case.  RGTraynor  17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Yeah, and the other people that responded, too. Please don't say that because three editors are enthusiastic about a topic that no one else responded when in fact they have. Yes, I am the editor who "passionately pursued" keeping and am "the thread that ties it together" -- thanks for the compliment. But I haven't tried to bulldoze it either. Invitiations for discussion on CFB:N have been sent out to at least twelve other related WikiProjects listed at the Family of Projects as well as inclusion in the College Football Project Newsletter. A simple What Links Here check shows well over 100 articles/user pages/talk pages that link to the essay. WP:CON states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would say that requests for input to 12 projects, contact to all editors on the CFB team, and over 100 links to other articles/user pages would at least be close to "adequate exposure" -- how can we get more?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't conflate people voting Keep in AfDs with them participating in adopting a consensus policy at a Wikiproject. WP:CON also holds, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale," and "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." There is even an active notability discussion for athletes over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people); why not post your criteria there and see how many people sign off on it?  RGTraynor  19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the twelve projects that I notified are not exactly a "limited group of editors", plus with the listing among the essays category, the newsletter announcements, and other measures taken--it's not like two or three people got together and decided this--just that a few editors were actively involved in the writing of it. Many, many, many people have viewed and reviewed the essay. The essay has stood up against multiple AFDs in the past and even been referenced on projects outside sports as a model notability essay (Wikipedia Airports, I think). The broader community has been convinced. Yes, consensus can change, and the project welcomes all input on that consensus--but here is not the place to do it. And for the notability/athlete/people project, I think we already have... but I'll go there right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment One online source is given. Yes, we like more. Please understand the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- sources must be "verifiable" and not necessarily "verified"--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The online source given is not only the college's own website, which is not "independent" per WP:N, but constitutes trivial mention, as the only information about West given is his won-loss record and the years he coached.  RGTraynor  17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question oh and I'll ask again: exactly how does CFB:N violate WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:ATHLETE ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many problems with CFB:N, but in the end it isn't pertinent to this debate, as it has no actual policy standing.  RGTraynor  17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that the reason the nominator gave is specifically because of CFB:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you point out where CFB:N is linked in the nomination? He seems to be speaking about CFB:COACH, as far as I can tell.  RGTraynor  17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • CFB:COACH is a part of CFB:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Needs proof of signifcantly more non-trivial coverage coverage which is also non-trivial if it's to be kept. More detailed points:
  • WP:N requires non-trivial coverage. IMO mentions in record books etc is almost certainly going to be trivial probably listing no more than his record. The coverage in the link provided looks trivial to me.
  • My reading of "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" from WP:ATHLETE is that it should apply to amateur sports or at least sports that were amateur at the relevant time. American football is not amateur so I do not think falls under this category. Even if we accept that this guideline is meant to cover college football I doubt there would be many editors that would consider "Division III" top level. Given the coverage college football recieves in America I would have no problems with coverage of some of the players / coaches for the top teams but I seriously doubt this would stretch to Division III.
  • CFB:COACH does not trump WP:N especially as it's not been adopted and doesn't look close to being.
  • I agree with the others that state that this is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss this. If CFB:COACH was an accepted standard then I might disagree but as it isn't it's perfectly proper to bring it here.

Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • HUH??? Exactly how is college football not an amateur sport? Seriously.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that although college football is amateur, american football as a sport is not. We do not have articles on players in the Football Conference as although this could be argued to be the top level of the amateur game, football (soccer) is, as a sport, a professional sport and there are many more notable layers above it. In the case of college football there's the NFL. I accept it's not an exact comparission given the importance of college football in the US but in my opinion it's enough to make this criteria inapplicable and mean that competitors in college football will have to meet the general WP:N guidelines, which of course many will, although this coach does not. My understanding, and intpretation, was that the "amateur sport" criteria was written to include players at the top of a sport when the entire sport was amateur, e.g. Rugby Union up to the mid-nineties, where no player was professional so would never have qualified under the first athlete criteria despite the league they were playing in having a similar standing to the top league in professional sports. This clearly does not apply for college football as the pinnacle of an American Football career is the NFL. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the NFL does not negatge the notability of college football. Please read WP:ATHLETE more carefully. The second point says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" not "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports unless there is a professional league for that sport." --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it carefully - it's only one sentence! It's basically all down to interpretation and what you take "highest level in amateur sports" to mean. As stated above I think this to mean "the highest level of a sport where the entire sport at all levels is amateur" (e.g. Rugby Union prior to 1995) whereas you take it to mean "the highest level of the amateur levels of a sport". I think both are valid interpretations of the sentence (don't you just love the ambiguity in the English language). However I think common wikipedia usage is more towards my interpretation. As stated above we don't automatically think the top plays in amateur football (soccer) are notable (there's a whole bunch of AfDs to support this). Likewise we don't have articles on the top amateur tennis players, top amateur baseball players etc. (unless they're notable for some other reason under general notability guidelines). Now I accept the situation in American Football is different to all these sports but it's a general guideline and it would be really odd if people interpreted it one way for one sport and another way for others. Dpmuk (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only one sentence... so why are you adding so much to it instead of just what it says? I hate to be harsh in discussions like this, but seriously: If you know it's only why sentence, how can you be getting it so wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be WP:CIVIL and accept that people may intpret things differently do you. Just because they do doesn't mean it's not valid - I accept that your inpretation is a valid one I just disagree with it. Why can't you do the same with my interpretation? I'm not adding anything in to it, in this context I would take "amateur sports" to mean "a sport where the entire sport is amateur" - I only expanded it above to make that clear. I would add that I am far from the only person to intpret it like that - see WP:FOOTY/N which has been accepted by many editors. Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As stated by Paul, this man competed at the highest amateur level, which WP:ATHLETE guarantees to be notable. It's basically like politicians: if we have a single reliable source (if Geneva isn't a reliable source for its coaches, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress isn't a reliable source for members of the US Congress) that someone was a legislator, that's sufficient to prove notability and to keep the article. We have no more reason to require lots of nontrivial coverage of this man than we do of government officials and professional sportspeople. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no reason for lots of non-trivial coverage but as per WP:N we need some and I've yet to see any as the one reference in the article is clearly trivial. Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the subject competed; he was a coach. The language of WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Paul is quite wrong; West coached nowhere near the highest level of amateur football as would have been defined either then or now, and was not, so far as we know, a competitor. WP:N does not require "lots" of nontrivial coverage, but it does require some.  RGTraynor  19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- It appears we have an interesting situation where someone has built a series of coach articles for a D-III school that would otherwise be considered acceptable for a D-IA (now FBS) school. Here's my suggestion: Merge all coaches were weren't notable enough (i.e. went on to a bigger program or professional league) into an article about Geneva College Golden Tornadoes head football coaches or something like that. If a coach deserved more information, then simply have a "see main article" branch within the article on the group of coaches. I think all the information present in this article would be appropriate for that merged article. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitations were sent to Sports and American Football projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As this guy plainly fulfills the college football project's criteria, why are you seeking to have just this article deleted? Perhaps it would be more productive, if you believe the criteria to be contrary to overall notability standards, to seek to overturn the project's criteria and then revisit this question? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I consider "signifcantly more non-trivial coverage" (which is what it said when I placed my "keep") to be equivalent to "lots". Anyway, seeing how many people we have in Category:American football officials and Category:Baseball umpires, I'd guess that other people than the actual sportspeople are generally considered to count under WP:ATHLETE. I'm well aware that other stuff exists, and that we're not debating whether baseball umpires should have articles, but please consider that "competitors" apparently isn't always interpreted as meaning just the people actually playing. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, that really is the overwhelming definition, actually; competitors are those who compete. As you say, this AfD isn't about baseball umpires, although I agree they don't qualify under WP:ATHLETE either and must rely upon WP:BIO's general (and far stricter) criteria. That being said, my position - and that of Wikipedia policy, come to that - is that no Wikiproject yet has the power to override broad, explicit policy and guideline. While my somewhat harsh answer to Paul's legitimate question of "How can we get more?" is "If you can't, you have no meaningful consensus," this AfD must still be decided on black letter, official policy and guideline. No such policy or guideline supports retention of a biographical article for a subject without any meaningful, reliable sources, no biographical information whatsoever, no evidence of notability and who means none of the explicit secondary criteria under WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even ignoring the fact that it is perfectly within wikipedia policy to discuss this here, it is also seems to me to be the best place for it as I bet many people with an opinion on this subject don't even know the college football project exists and are even less likely to comment on the guidelines there. Instead of moaning about this discussion being held at AfD why don't you consider this an oppurtinity to start to form a wider consensus on at least one part of the college football guidelines. I also suspect that this will be a bit like a test case and that many other coaches will be nominated if it succeeds. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Be happy to. Already invited users from over 12 other projects, commented and participated in multiple AFDs, listed the essay in the wikipedia essay category, worked with comments on WP:N, ... what else should the project do? The project has asked and asked, but no one seems to want to comment on the essay, only on individual articles. Per WP:CON, silence implies consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And when your crew posts to the talk page on WP:N to say "Our criteria supercedes the general criteria of WP:N and WP:BIO," and no one responds one way or the other, I'll cheerfully concede that you've obtained project-wide consensus that it does.  RGTraynor  18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't personal. The college football project is not "my crew" (we have our disagreements). This is about making Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Upon reading everyone's arguments. It appears unless we redefine the meaning of "competitor", "highest level" and only for a certain value of "amateur sports", criteria in WP:BIO are simply not met. The basic problem here is that the wikiproject involved doesn't seem to agree with Wikipedia's scope and policy. However, Wikipedia is not a universal wiki, it is not a wiki farm, if the rules are not adequate for your project, the most sensible course of action is to migrate to a separate, specialized wiki, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Wikia ? Equendil Talk 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quesiton Okay, I'll bite: Exactly how is the head coach not a competitor, how is College Football not the highest level of the amateur sport, and exactly how does "amateur sport" need to be re-defined? It's not enough to just say "they are not met" -- how are they not met?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NAIA football is not remotely the highest level of college football, and no coach advances a football as much as a yard on the field of play; indeed, the current wording of WP:ATHLETE specifically deleted coaches because it was not felt they should be prima facie notable.  RGTraynor  14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been discussed above already. Equendil Talk 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussed, yes... but not to completion or resolution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been discussed to my satisfaction. I didn't see much of a counter argument regarding : 1) coaching as opposed to competing; 2) the "highest level" of college football; 3) lack of non trival coverage. I read people's points, I formed an opinion, I did not feel I needed to reiterate points already made, so I didn't. I'm also not quite sure how "amateur sport" is to be interpreted in WP:ATHLETE hence my mention of it. I read it as including those sports that don't have professional competition. Equendil Talk 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WikiProjects do not get to redefine notability requirements for articles in their purview and this guy clearly does not meet the agreed standards at WP:BIO etc. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RGTraynor is completely correct. Besides, keeping based on an essay from a Wikiproject would set an extremely bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Appears to fail both the basic WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - coaching for three years at a minor college is not an indication of notability --T-rex 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also agree with Stifle. An RfC may be necessary on the contradictory guidelines established by this specific WikiProject. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I will add that WikiProjects may establish their own guidelines and policies, they should not be of lower standards than those of the community at large. MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mm, yes. As it stands, WP:ATHLETE is the most notoriously loose guideline of WP:BIO, and there's broad consensus that it should be tightened. There's just no consensus as to how, since the concept of notability varies so widely between sports. Still, it's almost always the case that Wikiproject criteria is a good bit tighter.  RGTraynor  05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Our notability guideline doesn't really cover coaches, which I consider a weakness. However, it doesn't matter in this case. I couldn't find anything online to establish notability, which a low-level college coach would need. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I'm tired of these five-person Wikiprojects making up their own notability guideline which they think the whole WP community must abide by. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / request. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable. As if WP:ATHLETE wasn't bad enough. No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride.Kww (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I would be prepared to accept assumed notability for the coach a a major college team; i would probably accept it for someone who had in some way a seminal or historic role possibly even within the college; I would possiblyy accept it for even a small college where the coach's tenure was associated with championships; but for a small college coach with an undistinguished record holding the position for 4 years only and associated with no major developments of any sort--this is just plain unreasonable. I accept specialized guidelines, but they have to meet the test of common sense as judged by the overall community. I'll defer to those particularly interested as long as they're reasonable about it, and in this case they are not. DGG (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per DGG; do not accept arguments of the keep people to be sufficient to ignore the site-wide policy, and a Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lepidopterists[edit]

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

This is an article which reads as a plot summary drawn directly from the primary source. There are no other sources cited. The series does not appear to be syndicated beyond its original broadcaster, it is probably the case that this series of excessively detailed unsourced articles on individual episodes should be condensed and merged to the existing list article - I would view this as a test case in that regard. Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki for publication of plot summaries drawn direct from the original medium. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of The Venture Bros. episodes, can't see how any episode of this show requires such a lengthy synopsis, much less an article. Fails WP:N and of course with no sourcing also falls foul of WP:OR. treelo _radda 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will open by saying that I am an avid fan of "The Venture Brothers." That being said, I am forced to concede that a great deal of the wikipedia content on this series borders on or runs afoul of the "fancruft" line. There is undoubtedly a great deal of obsessive fans out there who want an article for every episode of this series. Further, I am positive that at some point in the future there will be enough additional content available surrounding these episodes (even things like commentary from the creators) to justify wikipedia entries. That day has not yet come.

• Merge to List of The Venture Bros. episodes. Miros (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources. We66er (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes, this individual episode isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap (Film)[edit]

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

A film totally lacking reliable sources to satisfy WP:MOVIE (just links to websites for participants in its production) ... PROD contested by anon single-purpose account without comment ... pure vanispamcruftisement by editors with conflict of interest who keep removing the {{Articleissues}} tag without addressing the issues. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps worth saving as story is about a major Indian historical figure. Sources seem to be out there. Article needs major rewrite to remove POV, wikification, trimming, and sourcing. Will begin an attempt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to this edit to Pratap Singh of Mewar by the author, the film is still in post-production, and hasn't even been released yet, making this WP:CRYSTAL. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... and not to nitpick, but a film that has completed principle filming and is waiting for a release date is not WP:CRYSTAL. That would be if the film was still in the planning/pre-shoot phase. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not even 1 actor, or director is note worthy. Forget the film. Bollywood is the largest film industry in world, realeases hundreds of films. Not every film is noteworthy.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that no one involved with the film is notable, but that criteria cannot be considered as notability is not inherited anyway. I agree that Bollywood releases more films in a month than the U.S. does in a year, but that too cannot be considered as quantity does not reflect quality. I also agree that more films are non-notable than are so, but the film appears to be concerned with a very prominant figure from the early history of India and the Indian people. I'm simply having problems with my search for sources. Added to the points you brought up... there was an Indian film by the same name that was released in 1946 as one of the earliest post-war epics from India... and the articles about this current incarnation have attributed THIS later film by several different versions of the the article's name. These factors, and my inability to read Hindi make source hunting a bit tougher than normal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not myself have the knowledge of Indian history or military history to trim this article and keep proper conent. And I do not have the time... but and apparently neither does anyone from Project india or Project military. Certainly the historical aspects of this film are notable, seeing as it deals with a pivotal moment in early Indian history and the military tactics of a singularly unique leader... but as for the film itself.... I do not know. No need to have it cluttering up important space on Wiki until someone gets around to sourcing it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect to the show — Coren ^(talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jurgens[edit]

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

Not notable fictional character. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources, this is nothing but an unnecessary extension of the main article. TTN (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we should keep this article due to coverage in reliable sources. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't verify that source because it is behind a subscription wall. Can anyone check and see whether it is non-trivial coverage? Stifle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the source cited does name the character in giving a plot summary, it does not discuss the character in depth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in depth is not the criterion. Ask for real world information, you've got it, you still want to delete. DGG (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The NYT article gives no coverage of the character other than a summary of the show. Not significant coverage, so the content should be removed. A redirect to the show is in order. The content is short, and can be reproduced by anyone who has watched the show, so I see no need to keep the history to allow merging. But it's not a huge deal either way. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect to The Secret Life of the American Teenager, the character isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G3). Alexf⁴² 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Benson[edit]

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

Blatant hoax as a quick google search shows. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please look through the history log of this page. The description of the subject of the article, whomever he is supposed to be (actor, businessman,...), is changing almost by the second. This was the version at the time of the AfD nom: [11]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete as hoax. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Easy call. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hoax/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A1) — While not pure vandalism as required per G3 (it has to be evident that all versions of the article are to be considered vandalism), there is no context whatsoever and easily fits the A1 criterion for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Not often you get such an evident hoax article semi-prot'd from all the vandalism thrown at it. treelo _radda 17:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tagged as A1 after a few moments of deliberation. Also endorse blocks on the anons and registered editors in what seems like a co-ordinated attack. treelo _radda 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and block various editors. The number of attack edits in the edit history is ridiculous. I recommend that some blocks be handed out to the editors or IPs responsible for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, hoax. Plus, the amount of attacks is getting ridiculous. RockManQ (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Plasmius[edit]

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

This page has not established notability in about a year. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Primary villain in a major show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A very important character with alot of information. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The notability concern is a strong one given the prior AfD which this article was a part of. Still hasn't been addressed but as a main character it might be somewhat notable enough. treelo _radda 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Main villain. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong trim&merge into List of Danny Phantom characters, where he doesn't seem to be listed yet (or am I just blind?). This article had plenty of "warning" to fix its many issues (WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT), now it's time to call the shots and do something about it. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix. As for the merging, discuss on the talk page. We do not better the wiki by deleting articles that can be improved to meet our standards. DGG (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Main villain of the series, but the article needs to be trimmed down as it is far too long for a fictional character, and most of the material therein is fan cruft. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main villian of a popular series. Edward321 (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close Wrong venue. Image is already up for speedy deletion, so this doesn't need to be moved to IFD. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("Image:Velvet & Angelina Entrance.jpg"[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD)

Copyrighted image.

http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/419/37/

Bottom of that link shows this exact picture. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't the place to AFD an image. Try Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. When you put the AFD tag on the image page, it gives you message that explicitely says this. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notwithstanding the contradiction of displaying an image that you believe should not be displayed, I'm taking this picture down. Complain to an administrator if you want. If you want to nominate an image for deletion, follow Pharmboy's suggestion. Please don't do this again. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that, I had assumed it was the same as an AfD. I'll follow procedure next time. My apologies. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer elementary school[edit]

Palmer elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not pass WP:ORG. Elementary schools are generally not notable and would not pass even the more inclusive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that was recently rejected. I looked around on google and could not find substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Based on its style, the article looks like it may have been written by a student, possibly as an experiment. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the long run, the nominator is right about notability. And I appreciate that Nsk92 has made this a straight nomination on Wikipedia policies; we should follow nominator's example, which is to avoid comment on a student's writing skills, and I hope that other editors will do the same. If I have any criticism of the nomination, it's only that I'd have preferred that a few extra days have been allowed before putting the deletion tag on a kid's first contribution. Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Only HS + get an auto pass on notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per general precedent that schools under high-school level are not notable without extraodinary evidence otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- or merge into Palmer, Tennessee, if any content is judged to be salvageable. Article seems to be based solely on author's own knowledge, but sourced information about this school could be good addition to the article about the town. The school district website does not seem to have useful information about this school. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Update: I found a new school district website, that has a tiny amount of info about this school, mostly that School Colors are Purple and White, Mascot is the Bulldog, and the Principal is Mrs. Sadie Smartt. Also, they apparently were established in 1927, as they celebrated their 80th birthday in 2007. Nothing I have seen indicates that this school is notable, but info from this article could be merged to the article about Palmer. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) More info: Official school enrollment statistics are on this webpage. --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not notable, Or Merge as per above, if any useful information can be put into the Palmer, Tennessee article. RockManQ (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete elementary schools are generally not notable. JuJube (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. We66er (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable information to merge currently. Would not recommend redirecting because there are 17 elementary schools with a similar name [12]. I commend Orlady for the research; that information could be added to Palmer, Tennessee, or to Grundy County School District ideally. --Jh12 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth; Snow'ed in September. seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Goth[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no way in this world that a proper article could ever be written on her. The in-game allusions to her are just gimmicky and aren't important to the gameplay (what is in The Sims?). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I like the page that seems to be the first thing you look for in pages to delete. Smurai Cerberus 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth. Nifboy (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of substantial verifiable info. Even the official strategy guide didn't have much to say about her, the Goths are essentially just the default neighbours. Besides, it's simple logic that if there was consensus to delete Mortimer, Bella should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Delete per recent AfD on Mortimer Goth. MuZemike (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Delete per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabreman[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a character spanning more than 20 years of video games. That the character is linked to a series of video games is not a valid reason for deletion. It's like saying we should delete, say, Emma Frost because it's only connected to comics. // Liftarn (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're comparing a chick who has been in well over 200 comics, at least 7 games and 2 animations for the last 30 years to an old man whos 'spanning more than 20 years of video games' consists of 6 games and 2 cameos. I follow your point, but you could use a better example. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete; even though the article does double-duty as a character article and a series article, there doesn't appear to be anything the article can be based on, aside from a handful of plot summaries, some cameos, and some rumors. Nifboy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ultimate Play the Game About as unconvincing an example of a bona fide character as you can get, in most games he's just 'Bloke B' who happens to have been given a name, as opposed to 'Bloke A' (Jetman). Compare the Knightlore image on the Ultimate Play the Game article to the screenshot of the player-character on Gunfright - spot the difference. One is Sabreman, the other is "Sheriff Quickdraw". The fact that the same character name has repeatedly been used in different games may mean something to the Stamper bros. but it's hardly the basis of an article. The GBA Sabre Wulf is so far removed from the originals as to be scarcely relevant and there's nothing indicating that this version of the character is any more noteworthy than the next. If the racing game does turn out to be more than a rumour then the article can always be reverted back. Someoneanother 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe we should keep this article as I will add this source to it. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, sources available don't seem to be sufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it doesn't meet our sourcing requirements as seen in WP:GNG. There's one reliable third party source, but all it can do is verify its existence rather than offer anything constructive to verify the article's contents. That said, I would accept a redirect if deletion were deemed inappropriate, as User:Someone another has offered a pretty well-balanced look at this article's merits and problems. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of an easily found source. If there's that, there will be more. Contra TTN, third parties talking about game characters in the context of the game is quite enough; Same for athletes--almost all our sources for footballers talk about them in the context of their football. DGG (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After doing various searches I can find nothing that would indicate this character meets the notability guidelines. When the character is mentioned it is only in reference to the games he appears in, there is nothing to build an article on. The games are notable, this character is not. RMHED (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (character)[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the character has appeared in a long running comic as well as a series of video games. // Liftarn (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge/redirect to the first game he appeared in. Appearing in a number of games doesn't make a character notable enough for his own article, but significant third-party sources do - when they discuss a character's creation, reception and influence. No sign of such sources yet, and if they do in fact exist somewhere, they may as well be incorporated into the game articles first. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's very little to say here beyond the CRASH (magazine) comic, which can more easily be incorporated into that article. Nifboy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the character does not meet our sourcing requirements. However, I would not let this AFD prevent someone from creating a Jetman (series) article, to summarize common aspects of the series. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created this article some time ago, hoping it would get expanded upon. As it hasn't, it's fair game for deletion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as a mostly non-notable character with nearly no RWC. Further, to me the concession by the initial author carries significant weight, and it is commendalbe to admit something like that freely. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ffm 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Daniel Fortesque[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; pure plot, information better suited for the articles on the two games + remake. Nifboy (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, original research, gamecruft. JuJube (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure fictional biography, i.e. plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete teh fict bio is too large and the aricle lacks RWC. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]