Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 24

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

The result was ☢. east.718 at 05:45, November 30, 2007

[edit] Radiation poisoning in fiction

Radiation poisoning in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia clutter. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a fan's guide to every little mention. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - maybe a shorter section could be transcluded onto the radiation poisoning page. Rudget.talk 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. No criteria for inclusion, but more importantly, no explanation of why radiation poisonings in fiction are important or notable. Just seems to be an attempt to collect trivially important information and is therefore non-notable. eaolson (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete where will the listcruft end. RMHED (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable listcruft. Axl (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable topic and because the two comments above the comment above mine violate “I don’t like it”. I feel strongly that these types of articles are encyclopedic and only need to be improved via “so fix it” and that they satisfy List by having reliable references and organization. Also, keep per this argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I do like "Radiation poisoning in fiction". My favourite is Spider-Man. Axl (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Spider-Man" isn't even on the list. It's an outrage! Axl (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to a failure to utilize secondary sources for the list of entries -- we don't indiscriminately list all the details of some aspect of the world around us especially in fiction, we explore the real-world context of the aspect. This article fails to accomplish this. There should instead be a focus on providing prose for the topic, such as secondary sources explaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of radiation poisoning that is portrayed in fiction (if such sources exist). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An article as described by Erik above might be worthwhile, but as it stands this is pure listcruft. CKarnstein (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:42, November 30, 2007

[edit] Boss Hogg Outlawz

Boss Hogg Outlawz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's a non-notable record label started by one of the artists, who has since been signed on to two other record labels. All other notable musicians on this label have also moved off to other labels. There are no reliable references for this page, and what I can find on google only appears to confirm that we don't need an article on this. First four hits are official website, MySpace, and two YouTube videos. This article is #6.

Also including:

• Boss Hogg Outlawz discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• There isn't any AfD notice on the article, somebody should take care of that. I doubt this article will ever be any good, but the fact that their album cracked the top 100 on Billboard might be enough for them to be considered notable.P4k (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:42, November 30, 2007

[edit] Ahmed Ismail Jumale

Ahmed Ismail Jumale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Good faith search for verification of notability turns up *no* results. No sources are cited. Clearly an auto-biography of creating user. Newtman (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I removed the speedy deletion tag on this because the article made a claim to importance/significance, so didn't qualify under WP:CSD#A7, but I agree that this is a pretty clear cut hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with the above. The article is almost definitely a hoax, and should be deleted in line with this. Rudget.talk 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. But WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes makes it clear that speedy deletion shouldn't be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake. Y Done - Rudget.talk 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, probable autobiography, probable hoax - birth date makes him 14, which doesn't match the picture or the claim to be an ambassador. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Davewild 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kérim Chatty

Kérim Chatty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about a guy who was accused of planning to hijack a plane. The investigation was dropped, he was cleared of all terrorism-related charges and only convicted for carrying an illegal handgun. He is not notable and the article reeks of speculation and false accusations. Unithow (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - this incident received huge attention in international media[7][8][9][10][11], definitely one of the most notable terrorism-related incidents in Sweden in later years. That the investigation was dropped does not affect its notability. The article is also properly sourced so you need to specifiy what you mean by "false accusations". /Slarre (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The incident recieved attention based only on the interpretation of it as a botched terrorist attack, for which there was no evidence whatsoever. There was only speculation about uncompleted flight training he underwent years before converting to Islam, and speculation about his beliefs and connections to militant islamists, which is reproduced in the article. The unidentified US "military intelligence source" claiming to know that his intentions were to crash the plane into an embassy was denied by Swedish security police and the claim was withdrawn by the CIA. The fact is he was cleared of the charges and for all we know he is just a small-time criminal, i.e. clearly not notable. Unithow (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"There was only speculation about uncompleted flight training he underwent years before converting to Islam, and speculation about his beliefs and connections to militant islamists" - These aren't only speculations as the information is based on the cited reliable sources present in the article. If you disagree then you need to show that with reliable sources.

"The unidentified US "military intelligence source" claiming to know that his intentions were to crash the plane into an embassy was denied by Swedish security police and the claim was withdrawn by the CIA." - Please provide at least one reliable source for this as well. /Slarre (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have provided the sources yourself, [12] [13] [14] when you created the article. Unithow (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the second source mentions anything about this claim - it would be good with several reliable, independent sources to verify. The article also says that Reuters has stood by its report and not withdrawn anything from it. However, discussion about the factual accuracy or potential bias of the article doesn't really belong to this discussion but should be brought up on the discussion page instead. /Slarre (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & WP:NOT#NEWS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems this man obtained notability/notoriety through being a suspected hijacker, he was never charged for this offence. He has done nothing else to warrant an article, I would say it's time to let him slip back into obscurity. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple reliable sourcing is what proves notability at WP, and that is certainly rpesent. DGG (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge somewhere, without a clear consensus as to where or that a suitable merge target exists. As has been done with other fictional works with a surplus of minor-character articles, it may be a good idea to develop new lists or reformat existing ones to accept merged information from such articles. That, however, is an editorial task, not an administrative one, and will probably take more planning and work than can be accomplished at a single AfD. It is encouraging to see that the discussion has largely remained civil, and it would be best to continue it between the editors involved as to how to develop such parent articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Mitchell

Adam Mitchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Two-episode Doctor Who character. The article is mostly a plot summary of those two episodes, peppered with fan observations (i.e. shortest travelling time with the Doctor, no appearances on the Tardis control deck). Despite these, the character isn't notable. Nydas^(Talk) 12:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This nomination is purely pointy .Garda40 (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• How is it pointy? Nothing in the article proves the nom's deletion rationale wrong. Your link links to the nom's statement where he (justly or unjustly) believes that the sheer number of fans and admins of Doctor Who fandom would abuse their !votes for keeping articles that clearly fail policies and guidelines. By recommending keep without proving the nom's rationale invalid, you're actually re-inforcing the nom's belief. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't see how that nomination is pointy I can't help you and incidentally one of his rationales in the edit summary is wrong .Garda40 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "how does the (perceived) pointyness of the nom justify keeping this article when the deletion rationale is valid." – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Trying to prove a point in itself is not enough, to violate WP:POINT one must be disruptive in their proving of said point. So even if this AfD is being used as an example, it's not what I would call disruptive. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. as above. --Kizor (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Should one of the above be removed? Rudget.talk 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, fixed. My mistake. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge a brief summary into Companion (Doctor Who) or into a new List of companions in Doctor Who (currently a redirect). Regardless of the nominator's motives, the article provides no evidence of reliable secondary coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and any relevant coverage would probably be concerned with the two episodes this character was in rather than the character himself. EALacey (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article now has good real-world content, so thank you to the users responsible. However, I still doubt that this character needs an independent article; everything under "Conceptual history" can and should be in Dalek (Doctor Who episode) or The Long Game, which would make this article redundant. I read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as supporting the principle that things within works of fiction should be treated in the article about the works (in the case, the episodes) if that doesn't make them too long. EALacey (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere or redirect as non-notable character. This is just the repetition of information that already appears elsewhere on wikipedia. (The Long Game, Dalek (Doctor Who episode), Companion (Doctor Who)). No demonstration of notability of the article topic other than in-universe significance. Keep !voters should state how this article in its current states satifies WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:NOR. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding T 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Hiding T 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - per repitition of content on other pages, so other data could be merged back with the original source. There is also some evidence of original research in the text, with which I quote "..The Dalek manages to break free and slaughter its way through the base". It also has no reliable or independent sourcing, and so any claims such as "making him one of the shortest-serving of television series companions" (in the lead) aren't verifiable. Rudget.talk 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Very little real-world commentary on this exceedingly minor character, so it will be impossible to reference. While long-standing Companions such as Sarah Jane have achieved individual notability, not every character introduced briefly as a once and former companion needs a separate article. Merge and redirect to List of Companions. --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. This really seems to me to be taking fandom a little too far for an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge With a lack of real world information, there is much to be trimmed. So much so that it would no longer make sense to stand as an independent article. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep the character is notable, as Shannon Sullivan's site does have information about his casting Will ^(talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  And it's in. While it's short, it does pass the baseline of the general notability guideline: Shannon Sullivan's site is reliable, independent of the production team and BBC, and it is significant coverage. I therefore urge any !voters to reassess their opinions on the article. Will ^(talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look, I respect comprehensive fan sites as sources of information, but if you want to promote it as a reliable source, then please show some editorial guidelines. Where do they source their information? Do they have an editorial review process, like newspapers or peer-reviewed journals? If there are no editorial guidelines, then WP:V#self-published sources applies. Does Shannon Sullivan separately publish about this, demonstrating expertise that has been recognized elsewhere, such that we should recognize SS as an "expert" and trust SS's personal expertise? --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• By your response, I can tell you haven't even opened the site. As a matter of fact, ABHoT(T) does source its information. If it's good enough as a citation in a featured article, then it's good enough for the purposes of an AfD. Will ^(talk) 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm. I did open the site and looked at the two referenced articles in the Adam Mitchell article. They include "sources" at the bottom but the cites are not clearly referenced in the article, and the articles references sources that are not included in the sources ("the BBC..."), etc. I mean, this isn't an academically published work, and that's fine; it's great for a fannish database; and I'm sure it's probably pretty reliable. For a fan website. References alone are not editorial policies, btw, so the fact that they have a marginal "sources" section (which is good for a fansite) doesn't mean that they are a reliable source in the ordinary (academic, or journalistic, or wikipedia) meaning of the word. ... It doesn't matter, though, because even if shannonsullivan were reliable to my standards, it's still only one source of information, and does not suggest notability. --Lquilter (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dalek was put on FAR last year for lack of sources. During that time, SS was added as a source, twice. No-one raised an objection to that source, although there were objections raised to other sources. Now, excuse me if there's a gap in logic, but if a source is good enough for an FA, does'nt that automatically make it good enough for an AfD. Will ^(talk) 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• No. The source may not have been carefully reviewed at that time. "Was not challenged" is not the same thing as "could pass a challenge" or "did pass a challenge". --Lquilter (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd think people would prioritise to scrutinise sources on the internet before going onto published books, especially in a FAR. Will ^(talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• And yet. It is my experience that FARs demand sources and kick out the very worst ones, but actual qualitative assessment of individual sources is rarely if ever approached. ... This is digressive, though; I think we have to agree to disagree about the value of the source. --Lquilter (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think an article with a lot of more reliable sources can use stuff from sources that are less reliable. An article using only sources from the lower end of the reliability spectrum have a harder job convincing editors that the topic is of note. Remember, whatever anyone says, notability is subjective. Our guidance on it is becoming increasingly full of subjective adjectives. Hiding T 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good point - tx! --Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into the best possible place for it. Unless the real world information is so significant that it cannot be placed in a list entry or in the production of the episodes the character was featured, it doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  There's as much conceptual history as Robert Chase from House, and seeing as the former only appeared for 90 minutes on screen, that's good. Will ^(talk) 13:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument. We should probably delete RC, too. --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's in no way an "other stuff exists" argument. I'm saying because Robert Chase passes WP:FICT due to the conceptual history in his article, so does this article. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, don't call it an "other stuff exists" argument. It appears to me on looking at the Robert Chase article, and reading your description of it, that that character is not real-world notable, either. However, I don't have time in my life to police all the fictional character biographies that appear in wikipedia. If someone else wants to post Robert Chase for AFD I will listen to the discussion and -- based on what I know at present -- most likely recommend deletion. Your argument-by-example (or whatever you want to call it) is thus not very helpful here. --Lquilter (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Companion (Doctor Who) StuartDD _{contributions} 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to suggest a Merge if I could think of a good article to put it into. Unfortunately, Companion (Doctor Who) does not have any paragraphed or point-form details on specific characters; they're all in a table. Similarly, List of Doctor Who supporting characters only links to articles with single descriptions, and there is no List of Doctor Who minor characters. Given the way the Doctor Who character data has been laid out, and the notability of an actual televised (and thus somewhat canonical) character, my best suggestion would be to Keep. Radagast (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to above - we have List of Doctor Who supporting characters. I would suggest a List of Companions in Doctor Who page, or similar, as we will probably get few more of these in future. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach and would deal with Radagast's issue above. --Lquilter (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - coming into this a little late, I see conceptual history stuff for the character, which is out of universe and not a rehash of what's in the show itself. The fact that the character meets the general definition of "Companion" with respect to the show's format is sufficient of itself to justify an article; it merely needs to be done correctly. Furthermore, the character's failure to remain in the TARDIS was in itself significant. As discussed by Russell T Davies in Doctor Who Confidential and elsewhere, he was designed for failure, and this represents a reimagining of the whole companion concept, expanding the format beyond the old constraints on such characters. The solution here is to introduce more citations and discussions based on reliable sources (which do exist), not to delete the article because it's not yet all that it can be. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you produce a few of these cites to show that they exist? Not enough to fully source the article but just enough as a proof-of-concept? --Lquilter (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are to assume that a long-term contributor is lying to try to save an article, we may as well save ourselves some trouble, blow up the encyclopedia and go home.
I know you likely only meant to ask for the sources to check that they're suitable, just... be careful with wording, it's easy to take things the wrong way online. --Kizor (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume anyone was lying, and I hope Mavarin didn't take my comments that way. But Mavarin says the solution is to add cites, and I can't evaluate them (nor can anyone else) without seeing some of them. Discussion above has already shown that people have varying ideas of what qualifies as a reasonable cite in this space. I'll be happy to change my opinion if someone can show me published cites that talk about the interesting things that Mavarin describes. I would *love* to see reference-able, quality discussions of pop culture topics at that level. --Lquilter (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, that's why I cautioned you to be more careful instead of jumping down your throat. No big fuss. --Kizor (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken! Seems like a reasonable request. Let me see if it's in the Confidential cutdown, as I don't have the full version handy; also the commentary. I'll report back shortly, but I know I've heard RTD commenting on this.--Karen | Talk | contribs 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! The Confidential Cut Down didn't have the detail I remember from the full episode, and the commentary doesn't have Davies, although it does have the actor. (Still, I should listen to the rest of the commentary for anything that might be helpful.) But I did get one Davies quote from the Cut Down, and a quote and cite for the Companion Who Couldn't stuff from the book Doctor Who: The Inside Story, in which Davies speaks briefly about the character.--Karen | Talk | contribs 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - I think it should become a part of List of Doctor Who villains (stop putting List of Doctor Who villains in red, it does exist!), as Adam is a bit of a baddie (demonstrated in The Long Game). Please take my views into account. -- From an 11-year-old kid named Chad Sladerri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.24 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It exists, and won't be red-linked, if spelled correctly. I've corrected the spelling.Shsilver (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Let me just second the previous keep comment. What is interesting about this character is his flaws and that he couldn't cut it as a companion, and in that way is more interesting than some of the longer lived companions who act as window dressing. --121.216.1.44 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, those who care can always recreate the article once sources are discovered. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Um, but reliable sources have already been found and added, along with some real-world info. I can look for some more, but I hesitate to put in much more work on an article that currently seems destined for Mergeville anyway. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taixing Street

Taixing Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable. This basically seems to be an article about "my street". thisisace (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per original research, no reliable sourcing, nothing available to verify claims. Rudget.talk 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:N. The factthat the first sentence contains the phrase "...is a normal street" doesn't inspire great confidence that this street is worthy of an entry :P. Tx17777 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not WP:50k by quite a margin. Grutness...wha? 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gutness. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keep argument is that the band is notable, which misses the point that these bootlegs are not, we're not deleted the band's article. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live at Lowlands 2408

Live at Lowlands 2408 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Bootlegs (illegal recordings) are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry unless proven otherwise. Nominating for deletion based on previous precedents Angel's Dream, Bless the Century Child, Mysteries and Mysteries vol. 2 and Wishsides. ReyBrujo (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Spiritual Darkness Alive in Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep I have no idea why I know this, but Dimmu Borgir is a notable black metal band, and this album appears repeatedly in discographies. Precedent cited by nom appears to mostly cover obscure/nn bootlegs, but doesn't establish that WP editors can't write about bootlegs per se. This article doesn't have much to say, but it says it competantly, and doesn't seem to be part of a sprawl of trivial articles on the broader subject. --- tqbf 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  Dimmu Borgir is a notable band, yes. But the bootleg is not. A quick Google search delivers 255 hits for "Live at Lowlands 2408" and 668 for "Spiritual Darkness Alive in Europe", most of which are either torrents or Wikipedia mirrors, while quick Google searches for official albums like "Enthrone Darkness Triumphant" and "Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia" give 75,200. Since it is a bootleg, notability of the album cannot be established. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

86 ghits if you exclude "torrent", "wikipedia", and "encyclopedia", mostly passing refs in discography. But I'll argue a place for this article in WP:SUMMARY style --- that is, if I was interested in studying Dimmu Borgir (I'm not), I'd be happy to know that a well-known bootleg was in WP, and that it wasn't cluttering up the main page. I don't have strong feelings, but I dispute the idea that bootlegs have no place on WP. --- tqbf 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, bootlegs are generally considered not notable, and there is nothing here demonstrating notability. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I read that as not intrinsically notable, but I'm not trying to argue, I'm asking for my own benefit. Thanks. --- tqbf 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- if this was a particularly notable concert it can be mentioned in the main article for the band, but there's nothing to indicate this bootleg is notable enough to need its own article. CKarnstein (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ClipMoon

ClipMoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ClipMoon. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G11. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy: Should have been {{db-web}}. Andante1980 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• A7, will tag it as such. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Monday

Cyber Monday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mainly a page on Criticism and very little about the subject in hand. The page is very unbalanced and is a POV trap. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Term in common use in reliable sources; see a whole bunch from Google News. Article may not be great, but AfD is not the article improvement drive --Pak21 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Black Friday. Sufficiently notable, but not really enough to stand alone, and likely never will be. bd2412 T 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Although both are somewhat manufactured, at least Black Friday has some root in legitimate sales statistics. Torc2 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - typo? Your comment seems to contradict a keep? -Tejastheory (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I've been trying to keep the page factual and not spending much time on the POV. Can spend some time fixing this. Responding to BD2412: Cyber Monday is actually one of the top search terms on Google this week, so not having an article on it is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. Responding to Torc2: Neither Black Friday nor Cyber Monday are based on "legitimate sales statistics". Both are marketing events, and Cyber Monday is just as important a marketing event to online companies as Black Friday is to traditional retailers. My vote is to clean up the article and keep it. Dlandre —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment True, Black Friday is like Cyber Monday: marketing term without tangible sales statistics to back it up. Where Black Friday and Cyber Monday differ is in the cultural effect - "Black Friday sales" are a real cultural phenomenon that have droves of people camping out at stores the entire night. Even if there were no Black Friday marketing term, that cultural phenomenon alone merits an article. The same can't be said for Cyber Monday - there is no cultural impact, so there is nothing notable except for its use as a marketing term. See below for reasons why I don't think a marketing term deserves an article in and of itself. Tejastheory (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - The whole idea of a "Cyber Monday" is just built on top of a "Black Friday". Most media references seem to refer to it as the "Black Friday for online retailers". As it seems fairly obvious that this is not any sort of real phenomenon (see: lack of sales numbers that point to particularly high sales the Monday after Thanksgiving), the only notability of "Cyber Monday" is purely as a marketing term and perhaps mentioned in either fluff news articles or articles disproving the premise of Cyber Monday (disproving that it is a big day for online retailers).

  So we should ask: is a marketing campaign all that notable? Even culturally significant ads like say Nike's "Just Do It" don't have their own pages. I have not bothered to look very much, but I highly doubt there is any stand-alone article about an ad campaign (happy to be corrected, however), and even if there were, I am sure the notability of that campaign would far exceed that of "Cyber Monday".

  Sorry this is getting a bit long-winded. My basic thoughts boil down to:

  • This is simply a marketing campaign. I don't know of any standalone articles dedicated to marketing campaigns, and even if that were the case they would have to have some significance beyond "this is the campaign of XY company". The campaign should have some actual cultural or economic impact to be notable, and Cyber Monday doesn't.
  • Information here can be easily included into Black Friday. As of now, there isn't more than a few sentences worth of content describing this. Since the term "Cyber Monday" has its roots based on "Black Friday", this is perfectly appropriate. It should also be noted that almost all the news articles mentioning Cyber Monday invariably refer to it as the "Black Friday for online retailers". See first couple of google news hits:
    • http://www.mlive.com/business/grpress/index.ssf?/base/business-5/1195888617112150.xml&coll=6
    • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/11/24/ccwall124.xml
    • By the way, anyone know how to do unordered lists in wiki syntax? Tejastheory (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article just recently had the POV section added. The first paragraph of that section could be eliminted or cleaned up to make the article more NPOV. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As another note, virtually all of the relevant information is already included in the Black Friday article:

  The term Cyber Monday, a neologism invented by the National Retail Federation's Shop.org division, refers to the Monday immediately following Black Friday, which unofficially marks the beginning of the Christmas online shopping season.

  In recent years, Cyber Monday has become a busy day for online retailers, with some sites offering low prices and other promotions on that day. Like Black Friday, Cyber Monday is often wrongly said to be the busiest shopping day of the year for online shoppers, although in reality several days later in the holiday shopping season are busier.

  Earlier in the 2000s the day had more significance (though it was not named as such until 2005) as most people did not have broadband connections at home and presumably used the first day back at work from the long Thanksgiving weekend to take advantage of such connections in the office to do online shopping. In response, many retailers now encourage people to do their online shopping at home on Thanksgiving Day itself by offering their Black Friday sales online that day.

  Is there any new information that this article adds that isn't covered by that short blurb? Tejastheory (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Business Week article establishes notability as nontrivial coverage in a reliable source. Afd is not cleanup. Skomorokh ^incite 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Black Friday. 'Cyber Monday' is a notable term, which verifiably exists; but it's so closely linked to Black Friday that the two would be better covered in the same article. This article doesn't contain much information that isn't in the Black Friday article already, and it's unlikely that it ever will. Terraxos (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep. I hear this term all the time, so its notability isn't in question. However, if the article needs work and it's not getting done, it should be merged to Black Friday where it can get the copyediting it needs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This is helpful - I wanted to be sure I knew which day it was, and now I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.63.18 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The present version of the article has sufficient sourcing to show the notability, and that is the WP criterion. DGG (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Seems to be the equivalent of Black Friday, and is being talked about in the news. Jmlk17 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a lot of talk on the news, but most of it seems to be of the "well you know about retail sales on black friday, now the online retailers are gearing up for big sales on cyber monday!" fluff articles or segments - that is, the term "Cyber Monday" is rarely mentioned independent of the term "Black Friday". Also as I discussed above, Cyber Monday lacks any of the cultural significance that Black Friday does.Tejastheory (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as separate article. It's a relatively new term but legitimate per CNN. -Nv8200p talk 13:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable term and topic. The news sites are all over this and there is no expectation of it disappearing soon. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to close this as a WP:SNOW. No one except the nominator has suggested deleting the article; the "merge" opinions are essentially "keep". (Any discussion about merge versus a separate article should be done on the article talk pages in question, not at AfD.) Also, I've just added a couple more citations to the article (and that's from just the first page of Google results), of articles SOLELY about the term, from news sites; that should put to rest any questions that this is a notable term, PR spin or not. The article stills needs so more cleanup, but the deletion template needs to go. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferndale Strangler

Ferndale Strangler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fictional character/storyline with no sign of any real world notability Pak21 (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the major storylines of the series, and contains a wealth of information that is an incredibly interesting read. 125.236.192.172 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nom. More so, because of attempted astroturfing by the one major contributor. (As seen above, IPs match) Andante1980 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Pak21 and Jay32183. Hal peridol (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the major storylines of the series, and contains a wealth of information that is an incredibly interesting read and how can some of you even judge if you haven't seen Shortland Streetand i bet you that you don't even live in New Zealand.Glamgirljaspreet101
  • The importance to the story isn't what matters, WP:NOT#PLOT. There needs to be sources providing real world context, WP:FICT. Jay32183 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• It's going to get deleted in 3 weeks anyway, when the killer is revealed. Can't we leave it until then? Liamodwyer13 (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not how we decide to create or delete articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it contains substantial Original Research. dramatic (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:40, November 30, 2007

[edit] List of Indian architects

List of Indian architects (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list without any sources and will not ever be an exhaustive list. Category:Indian architects already exists and makes this list redundant. A category is much more suited for such lists. Aksi_great (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —Aksi_great (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Category:Indian architects is sufficient in this case. utcursch | talk 11:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Category is much more useful and easier to use. - Dumelow (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete replication of a category. RMHED (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep First see List of architects#Lists of architects by country. Second categories and lists both have reason to exist. The logic being used here could theoretically be used to delete the featured List of Dartmouth College alumni because we Category:Dartmouth College alumni. Third India is the second-largest nation on Earth and is not accurately represented on Wikipedia. Lists can reach people who may ignore projects. Although a merge to Indian architecture might be doable, well except for the article already being long.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. :( east.718 at 05:40, November 30, 2007

[edit] 2007 Illinois vs. Ohio State football game

2007 Illinois vs. Ohio State football game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although this game was an upset there is no real significance to it in the overall scope of the season other than a note being made on the actual article of the 2007 season. Joebengo (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nothing historical about the game, especially in this year of upsets. WP:NOT#NEWS, it would be forgotten after a while. This is a Secret ^account 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a sports news website Alexfusco5 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Woolson

Ash Woolson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to meet guidelines for notability WP:N. Of the four references listed, two link to his personal photography sites, and the other two do not mention him at all...just the organizations he is supposed to be involved with. This article seems more like an advertisement for the subject's photography and/or political agenda. Arx Fortis (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete If more of the subject's army record was elaborated on then maybe he would be notable but nothing in the article seems to establish notablility for any area of his life. Hammer1980·^talk 10:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established in the article and unable to find any independent sources. Maralia (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Wait It seems as if some people think this article is too short. My recommendation is to hang on, as several references will be added to the IVAW website. And as to "nothing notable in his life", this is baloney. You obviously never spent a year in Iraq or six years in the army, and I want an apology also for your unintentional slighting of something extremely valorous and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.knappenberger (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Evan, calm down. Hammer1980's comment was "nothing in the article seems to establish notablility for any area of his life" (emphasis mine). The issue is that the article doesn't establish notability. There are hundreds of thousands of servicepeople who have been or are in a theatre of war. However, this article doesn't really establish anything notable (according to WP:N) about this one. The issue is that there are no third-party, reliable sources (WP:RS) able to be found. Some of the links you provided in the article don't mention him at all. The only references that mention him are about his photography...and those aren't third-party sources. Arx Fortis (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's nothing notable about military service, as countless individuals have served in the military. Does not meet WP:N. freshacconcispeaktome 12:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - military service is not notable in the wikipedia sense. There are no reliable sources to esatablish his notability in any of his endeavours. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sandstein (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapezium of vowels

Trapezium of vowels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Trapezium.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This article has been incomplete since December 2005! Ghits don't look encouraging. MER-C 06:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 ++Arx Fortis (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 --DAJF (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. east.718 at 05:39, November 30, 2007

[edit] Analysis

Analysis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redirect as nom to Analysis (disambiguation). Nearly all of the article's content is on that page already, and it's a dictionary definition. Temperal^xy 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect: Per NOT. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 10:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Seems to me to be the sort of uncontroversial change which could easily have been performed by the nominator under WP:BOLD without any need for an AfD. Tx17777 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Move Analysis (disambiguation) to this title. Analysis started as a spin-off from the disambiguation page, but I believe the information in the spun-off text is contained within the articles disambiguated, and no preference should be given in the dab page to describing one possible definition. So revert the page move, and nothing else. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spongebob Season 6

Spongebob Season 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article already exists (barely) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SpongeBob_SquarePants_episodes%2C_season_six Arx Fortis (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant article, poorly formatted and unnecessary given what already exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per the above. Duplicate information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per the above. Duplicate information. Hammer1980·^talk 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, season six, then cleanup the article. ViperSnake151 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: No redirect. See AFD for List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, season six. Kesac (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above.   jj137 (Talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per ViperSnake151's comment above. Referenced article has been itself deleted. I am therefore changing my vote to keep, and nominating this article for the ICU. Vgranucci (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced crystalballing.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Mostly Harmless. Anthony Appleyard 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinidim Enterprises

Infinidim Enterprises (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This fictional company is not notable per WP:FICT. For example, a google search only finds 557 hits, and a NY Times search finds none. The organization was not a memorable part of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Foobaz·o< 05:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: NN, Unless it actually is important, then merge to Mostly Harmless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Mostly Harmless. The whole plot of Mostly Harmless revolves around this company and its business. Being memorable or not is also just your subjective opinion. Also, I'm pretty sure that there is a Wikipedia policy that states that using the number of Google hits is not a valid meter of notability. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 14:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I include my subjective opinions because this is a discussion on a subjective matter. Also, there are instructions for using the number of Google hits to measure notability at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Notability. Foobaz·o< 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources or other out-of universe importance and currently not even mentioned or linked froem the plot in Mostly Harmless and there isn't much to merge. If necessary the plot can still be updated to include their name and role. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Avatar (icon) and possibly rename the target article. Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar (video games)

Avatar (video games) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DICT Arx Fortis (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an important concept in video games... I may be missing the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. We seem to delete one and not the other? The Audient Void (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:The Audient Void, this is an important game concept, and this is a reasonable starter stub. Keep.-gadfium 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike that, merge into Avatar (icon). I knew we probably had an article on this already.-gadfium 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... what a terrible name for it, though. There's a huge difference between the term as Stephenson uses it and as a little user icon... better, I'd think, to separate material out from the icon article into the article on video game avatars... The Audient Void (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Into Avatar (icon) as stated by gadfium, and per nom. Jmlk17 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: Per the above. No need for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge As above.Hammer1980·^talk 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Also bear in mind we have a player character article, so between them the concept is covered in WP.Someone another (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Avatar (icon): (can we do that?) The two articles cover the same topic, so it's basically a dupe. eaolson (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to playable character. It shouldn't go to Avatar (icon) as they aren't really the same thing even though they have the same name. - Koweja (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: The existing content is completely covered in more detail at Avatar (icon). Anomie⚔ 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avatar (icon) but consider renaming the target article to something people might actually search for; that's probably why this stub was created in the first place. No one thinks to look under "icon" and "icon" is an outdated term, anyway. This is a major concept in Internet gaming and virtual world interaction. Perhaps a renaming to "Avatar (Internet)" might be more appropriate for the main, target article. 23skidoo (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. There's barely any text to merge. Axl (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avatar (icon), although I think we can create a better title than that for this article per 23skidoo's idea. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect It has so little infomation, so it should be merged and redirected to Avatar (icon). 1yodsyo1 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benerator

Benerator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Doesn't seem to verifiable either, the news ghits are unrelated and the first 110 of the ghits aren't reliable. MER-C 05:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Another one. Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged it for several reasons initially, and asked it to be looked at by an expert. As a non expert I could not establish notability. I still can't. Hammer1980·^talk 10:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, fledgling OS software project on freshmeat. Timeline shows it has been laying dormant for nearly a year, suddenly springing forward. Quite possibly this listing is an attempt at gaining attention. Andante1980 (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And ofcourse the fact that the username of the original author matches the name of the primary developer. Can be found through freshmeat, via the homepage link. Andante1980 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Neutrality, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh prince of Jamestown

Fresh prince of Jamestown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only source given is 1st party, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't see how this is notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a speedy db-web candidate. No ghits etc.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Tempted to A7 it myself, but will hold off. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete per A7 (non notable web content), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy close, malformed AfD nomination. Article already has a PROD tag on it, let the PROD run its course first. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Omega

Why should this unofficial mod be given a page on Wikipedia? Is there anything that would differentiate this mod from the myriad of other mods created for RA2? Think this fails notability by a million miles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AKFrost (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 05:38, November 30, 2007

[edit] Union of Progressive Students

Union of Progressive Students (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

That this organization exists is not an issue [15] but I can't find any reliable sources for any of the text. There is also no assertion of notability. seav (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per the noms reason. I've searched google also, and cannot find any sources which would imply and endorse notability for this group. There really is no assertion either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. due to notability and verifiability issues. No need to transwiki as WikiPilipinas has an entry about them.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:Looks like a mere campus political party to me, therefore it lacks enough reference and overall importance. Starczamora (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability issues and not a venue for promotions. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Frances Chevalier

Marion Frances Chevalier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A (former) professor at USC, lending her name as a professorship, but beyond that, not much. Jmlk17 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be easier to have an article on her if she were a Pokemon instead of an academic? The Audient Void (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:PROF. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. She does not appear in Gale Group's Biography and Genealogy Master Index and she does not appear in Marquis's Who's Who Online. Both of those sources index some very minor people. No mention of her was found in the International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance. --Bejnar (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The named chair suggests some significance, as does a book held by major research libraries... The Audient Void (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, a book held by minor teaching libraries may suggest significance, but major research libraries hold all sorts of junk of no significance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This person does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), as already stated above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That seems like a weird guideline. Does Wikipedia really suffer from complaints that it has too much coverage on academic topics? It seems like the sort of thing that is unlikely to ever make somebody disappointed with an encyclopedia - that it just gives too much academic information. The Audient Void (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm curious why, if this article was created only today, it was not given a {{notability}} template tag. To me there are colorable claims to notability and a {{notability}} tag would give notice that those claims need to be fleshed out more. This is not a facetious or clearly absurd claim. We have serious gaps in academic coverage and, unless one is an expert in the field and can assert non-notability, then it seems to me that a {{notability}} template is the better option to generate more work if it can. --Lquilter (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was so tagged. [16] But the original contributor removed it. [17] --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It seemed the reasonable thing to do after establishing notability. The Audient Void (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this makes no sense at all. It was put to AFD, on the same day it was created, just because there was a minor edit war, or difference of opinion, on what constitutes sufficient evidence of notability? People can do what they like, but I don't think it serves the encyclopedia well to escalate a potentially notable article to AFD rather than attempting to resolve a confusion or conflict over a notability tag. --Lquilter (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what happened. If you check the history, you'll see that someone else came along and nominated it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that Chevalier's major book was published in 1933, and so web resources probably aren't the most effective way to find information on her. The presentist bias here is disheartening. The Audient Void (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. She seems to be best known for "A dramatic adaptation of Rabelais in the seventeenth century: Les aventures et le mariage de Panurge (1674) by Pousset de Montauban", her 1933 Ph.D. thesis from Johns Hopkins University. At the time this work seems to have been quite notable: I can find reviews in Modern Language Notes, Modern Philology, and The Modern Language Review. It's unsurprising that it would be difficult to dig up much more detailed information about someone from that time period, but I find the nominator's justification to be very shallow. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment: Don't sell your work short, David, :) Given the additional work done by David Eppstein, I believe this subject satisfies WP:N ++Arx Fortis (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per David Eppstein and has a chair named after her. Why all the tagging minutes after the stub was created and an AfD within one hour?? Please, some patience people. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per Crusio's comments above: give the article time to develop before slapping AfD tags on it. --DAJF (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if she was notable enough to have a chair named for her, there is a high probability that she is notable enough for Wikipedia. Second - in spades - above comments on Pokemon, academic bios and presentism and shallow nominations HeartofaDog (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources have been found and of course the fact that a professorial chair has been named after her demonstrates notability. Do you really think that such an honour is handed out lightly? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We have found reviews of her book, we have not found sources about her. Let us not conflate. --Bejnar (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Academics are notable for their works. If we could only list people whose personal lives were notable, we would have an encyclopedia filled only with shallow celebrities. Some might say that that's already what we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Snort. --Lquilter (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The publication of her PhD thesis, a translation of Pousset with notes, appears to be her only publication. If that is her only notability, then the work should get the article, not her. U.S.C. frequently establishes chairs based on money, not notability. Disclosure: I graduated from U.S.C. --Bejnar (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• All institutions do that to some extent, but even then, donations are not infrequently from unrelated sources "in honor of", and are rarely for purely private citizens who have no notability. At any rate, I take it as a sign of notability, generally, unless there are obvious indications to the contrary. YMMV. --Lquilter (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of the notability of her work. (that a professorship was named after her is in my opinion indeed not all that much of a criterion--USC like other universities, when it gets money for chairs, names them after distigujshed figures or after the donor. In this case it is presumably not the donor--few faculty are paid enough to endow chairs in their own name for future generations, but they can have sufficient academic influence, for others to name chairs after them. One notable publication with multiple reviews is sufficient for the notability of an academic author, and the reviews cited are the third party sources showing the notability. There is not as much supporting material as the would be for someone in the internet era, and this should be taken into account. DGG (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Marginally fails WP:BIO at this point, but the article is only 30 hours old, and there appears to be a reasonable prospect that more substantive coverage is available somewhere for a woman who clearly made a significant contribution to her academic field. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep – It seems that contributors have almost exhausted their resources due to a search engine test, but this article appears to satisfy criteria #3 and #6 of the relevant notability guidelines. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus that WP:PROF criteria has been met. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy Kamuf

Peggy Kamuf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A professor at USC and an English translator are the only claims to notability. I don't believe that to be enough. Jmlk17 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Kamuf has translated six books by one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century and holds a named chair at a major research institution. What on Earth does it take for a major academic to make it into Wikipedia, and why is it somehow harder for one to make it in than it is for a Pokemon? The Audient Void (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• I overturned the speedy, so I abstain - but shouldn't we be giving stub creators more than half an hour to expand the article and add any potential sources/claims to notability before speedying/nominating for AfD? --krimpet⟲ 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:PROF. It was prod'd. But the creator removed the tag citing "obvious notability". [18] --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • She meets #s 3 and 4 via her translations and #6 via her named chair. The Audient Void (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• She won the American Comparative Literature Association's 2006 René Wellek Prize.[19] Note that the article on the organization describes the prize as "the most important award for comparative literature in the United States". So, um, yeah, she's notable. Picaroon (t) 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ambivalent Unlike Marion Frances Chevalier Peggy Kamuf does appear in the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th editions of the Directory of American Scholars. However, so far as I could determine, she appears in no other academic biographical sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am forced to conclude that your methods of evaluating the notability of academics are deeply flawed, in that case. The Audient Void (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Many of these google hits are sufficient, reliable source which can be added to the article to verify notability. I think this person meets WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm curious why, if this article was created only today, it was not given a {{notability}} template tag. To me there are colorable claims to notability and a {{notability}} tag would give notice that those claims need to be fleshed out more. We have serious gaps in academic coverage and, unless one is an expert in the field and can assert non-notability, then it seems to me that a {{notability}} template is the better option. --Lquilter (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - One minute on a Google Scholar search [20] suggests notability to me. --Lquilter (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Named professor at important research university. Winner of "this country's most prestigious book award in the discipline of comparative literature" (given to one person every other year). Seems a clear pass of WP:PROF to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as very clearly notable per above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Very definitely meets WP:PROF 4 and 6, and arguably 1. Hal peridol (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as fulfilling WP:PROF - Full professor, translator of Jacques Derrida, awards won. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:38, November 30, 2007

[edit] Bay City Buccaneers

Page tagged for speedy, but google search turns up several hits so I'd like some feedback. New York Dreams (talk)

• Delete From what I understand this is a youth football team in Australia. There is nothing notable about them that would warrant an article. There are tens of thousands of such teams in the U.S. and we are not accepting articles from them. As for the Google hits there are 347, mainly from football team websites within the league. KnightLago (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable club. Google search brings back nothing which would help establish any notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 09:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*Delete unless there is an actual league that it could be merged to? Even the league probably should be merged to American football in Victoria though I guess!Garrie 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect -- to Gridiron Victoria. - Longhair\^talk 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Longhair _{welcome back} Garrie 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Should this be expanded to include other teams in the same league? All articles are unreferenced. Garrie 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. They have the same problems this article does. A complete list is here. Feel free to batch list them for deletion or to redirect. KnightLago (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Entirely original research. Narrative. Ending clauses like 'the rest is history,' doesn't help, although I may just start inserting that when I get writers block. the_undertow ^talk 05:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldn't redirect. In my opinion, the entire league is not notable and should be removed. Spanneraol (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, amateur (presumably) gridiron team, does not seem to be any sources to provide verifiability or notability. Lankiveil (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete as it has not become clear what exactly the topic is and how it can been expanded. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaulim

Kaulim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Same as Uyot, this article has been around for a while. A couple members of WP:PLANTS have tried to identify the species, but there appear to be no reliable sources for this common name. Without the species name and in the absence of any relable sources to expand this article, I propose it be deleted or possibly transwikied to Wiktionary. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I think some of these google results verify that it is real. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep:One source link indicates that Kaulim is used in paper-making, that suggests hemp, jute, or possibly Sesbania aculeata. What grows abundantly in Sikkim? --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: If we could positively identify which species it was, we would redirect or create a viable article for it with a taxobox, etc. As with Uyot, neither of these common names can be tracked to a binomial. This is not a question of whether it's real or not, but whether it warrants an article on Wikipedia. It stands as more of a Wiktionary entry at the moment. Rkitko ^(talk) 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless at least one reliable source can be found. Without a reliable source how do we even know what this stuff is? 1 != 2 15:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with delete, since an off-hand comment in a Darjeeling newspaper is not a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This only seems to exist as an explanation for the name of Kalimpong. I haven't found anything that really discusses it as a plant, let alone allows a species identification (although there seems to be a kangaroo grass relative that grows in Sikkim that is used sometimes for paper pulp, there's nothing connecting it to this name). Unless someone has access to local (probably non-English) sources in Sikkim itself, we really don't have enough information for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - The Kalimpong article has its own etymology section that doesn't even mention this plant as a possible source for the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm asking around some online forums for more information on this plant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for doing that. If someone can tell us which species this is and point us to a reliable source, that'd be fantastic! I'd withdraw the deletion nom, then. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - unless a reliable source can be found --Melburnian (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It makes little sense to have an entry on a plant based on a local language, apparently notable only as a possible root for the name of a Bhutanese town. If the plant can be identified I would certainly change my vote to Keep. Tim Ross·^talk 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as it has not become clear what exactly the topic is and how it can been expanded. Tikiwont (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uyot

Uyot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is a sub-stub. Several editors from WP:PLANTS have searched through existing reliable sources and haven't been able to pinpoint the species. Only existing google hits don't appear to be WP:RS with which to expand the article. Delete or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Again, a google search makes it seem as if this is a real plant. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, it appears to be a real plant, I didn't claim it was a hoax. Without more information though, which we've searched for, we can't tell which plant this is and thus reliable information regarding its taxonomy, use, or description is impossible to locate. Rkitko ^(talk) 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although it is a sub, it is still open for expansion. Tavix (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although it has lots of Google hits, they are all for the rattle instruments made from uyot, and provide no information about the plant at all.

  I looked at dozens of sites and could not answer the following basic questions from any of the sites I looked at:

  What language does the word "uyot" come from?

  Where does uyot grow?

  Is it a tree, shrub, herb, or vine?

  What is the family, genus, and/or species of this plant?

  These are the most basic questions I would want answered about this plant, and none of that information is to be found in the many google hits returned by a search for "uyot". The sites that mention it are primarily (1) sites about instruments that mention that an instrument is made from uyot seeds, or (2) commerical sites selling such instruments. In short, there does not seem to be any information available on the internet to ever expand the Uyot srticle beyong a sub-stub. Further, the word does not appear in any of the standard plant species refernce websites or books. The sub-stub should be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - unless a reliable source can be found --Melburnian (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Without the bionomial name we can't even be sure if this is a plant or a group of related plants. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - googling "uyote" came up with a phrase for coffee in Ethiopian. It might be possible to find something using alternate spellings. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - and it might turn out that "uyot(e)" is just a word meaning "seed" in some African language. Imagined information will not expand this sub-stub. Experienced people have searched and come up with no additional information for the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As I noted in the AFD for "Kaulim", it makes little sense to have an entry on a plant based on a local language. Unless the plant can be identified in more widely useful terms, the article has very limited utility. Tim Ross·^talk 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007

[edit] Govill (Gamemaker game)

Govill (Gamemaker game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer game. "Played 93 times". No independent sources. Prod removed by article creator. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This isn't notable, it is, however, unsourced, and OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, unsourced, no pages link to it. - Dumelow (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's a gamemaker game, even! User:Krator (t c) 19:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Gamemaker games are usually not notable enough, and one played just 93 times even more. ♠TomasBat 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007

[edit] Area 51 Entertainment, Inc.

Area 51 Entertainment, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Snake Hollywood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A record label and its owner. No evidence of notability or even of existence. Both the works of Snakea5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Unless someone more knowledgable in this field can find some information that corroborates this, I think both comprise an ad for a non-notable person and his company. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Both: Non notable per WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. db-band and db-corp -ZacBowling^talk 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Spence

Chris Spence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of this page is not notable. The page looks like it started as an ad for his book. Look at the original post, it's just an ad for the book, with a link to Amazon right there at the beginning. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise. This page does not appear to have any other purpose than promotion of Chris Spence and his book.--James52 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Clearly notable, but the article reads like an advert, which needs to be taken care of. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Rjd. Written like an ad, but I think we should keep it and take care of that instead of simply deleting it.   jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The subject is still clearly notable. The article still clearly needs to be cleaned up. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Really? I mean, really?? Look at it. It's a vanity page, stroking an ego. I can't see that it is suitable for an encyclopedia at all. /scratch --James52 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• So fix it. Just because the article is a vanity page doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. And if the subject is notable (which seems to be the case), then the page is more than welcome to stay, so that others can clean it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Notability must be in the eye of the beholder. And I just don't see it. /shrug--James52 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Rjd. Maxamegalon2000 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A quick internet search will show the subject is clearly notable for more than just the book. The link to Amazon.com was added by one of your reviewers who insisted to have it in there so its a pathetic comment to state that this article was written as an advertisment for the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, my! A snippy, unsigned comment by the creator of the page. Whatever shall I do? How droll. Even pathetic, perhaps? I mean, really, MY reviewers? Like I have a vested interest?--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now, how did that comment make you feel? Cooperative? Receptive? Rational? If you really want to Win Friends and Influence People you might start by keeping a civil tongue.--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• As for the subject of the debate, I saw the page and was immediately struck that it "wasn't right". And I'm evidently not the only one, or even the first. This HAS been nominated for deletion before you know, which I discovered as I was following the process. (Not to mention the attempt at speedy deletion, this then is the 3rd attempt. Also not to mention that a person claiming to be the subject of the article has expressed support for it's deletion. Perhaps there is something to this after all?) Knowing human nature I figured a 'second' nomination had absolutely no chance of passing, but I did my little bit to attempt to rid Wiki of one more little piece of junk. If a rewrite is what it needs, anyone is welcome, but the subject simply does not interest me enough to attract me to do the work. Cheers.--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - This much travelled writer on global warming has attracted some interest as is shown by the numerous internet references to him which can be found through a search on google. Re-writing once again all the bits that were found is a waste of time. It has already been done. I am sure the subject of this article would not like to have himself referred to as 'one more little piece of junk'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article is referred to as one more little piece of junk, not the subject of the article. I can get myself into quite enough trouble without help, thanks. Hehe.--James52 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BOLD. I've removed everything that read like an advert, though there's not a whole lot left. I broke the body into a shortened bio section and a career section. The career section, I focused on Spence's writings. The book is the main hook for notability, but the articles and various non-notable mentions elsewhere were removed. I kept the three articles he seems to have written, and distilled them as a list of other writings. I did not think anything else could be kept, as it mostly sounded like a soapbox speech. I also removed external links that duplicated references or were geocities, and I added a stub tag. With the advertising removed, I have no reservations about keeping the article. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep but expand. This is getting a bit ridiculous. 90% of the article has now been removed including factual , verifiable statements. The article is removed to a few sentences, some with two footnotes a sentence. Either the chap is notable and worth writing about or not, but reducing the article to almost a stub with only a few sentences is clearly not the way to go. (JB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Spellcast (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midhat Hifziefendić

Midhat Hifziefendić (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A photographer, but wihtout any assertion of notability. (Prodded earlier, but had its prod template removed.) Name of SPA who edited it suggests COI too. Hoary (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any relevant jargon I've omitted in my nomination? -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: And I'm tagging it for speedy deletion. There is absolutely no assertion of notability here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007

[edit] Morgantown Mall

Morgantown Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable mall in Virginia; search for sources turned up nothing special. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: NN - Being the newest mall within North-Central West Virginia isn't notable enough? What? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to be the newest mall in West Virginia, period (unless Martinsburg Mall came later). But wait, this could be something semi-notable... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. Hammer1980·^talk 10:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's the top of its class according to this March 2007 study. Being rated the worst at something would make it notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 05:35, November 30, 2007

[edit] Mountaineer Mall

Mountaineer Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in West Virginia. A search for sources online found nothing of note (and judging by the mall's website, the place is mostly vacant anyway). Also contains a dash of original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTABILITY and ADVERTISING. Marlith ^T/C 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What's the point of creating an article of an non-notable mall when it could have been speedily deleted anyway? -Goodshoped 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. How notable is the mall, anyway? -Goodshoped 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not very notable at all; just another dead mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non notable mall. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we SNOW this? Marlith ^T/C 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. Hammer1980·^talk 10:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I often vote yes in the case of malls, but this is an algamation of information from the DeadMalls entry on it and information from the official website. TheListUpdater (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Form

Bad Form (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article was a prod but was removed several times by an anon and even at times the article was blanked, so it goes to AFD. Article was proposed for deletion because being unencyclopeic. JForget 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: How about NEO? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, looks to be also consisting of WP:OR with no sources to validate the info, thus fails WP:V.--JForget 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems more of a personal attack page to me against someone who slighted the editor IRL. Nate · (chatter) 01:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OR. Hal peridol (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Definite WP:COATRACK/WP:ATP material. Someone is playing around with someone else, maliciously or not. The image has got to go, too, so don't forget that. --Dhartung | Talk 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The term is used enough that there may be some information about it out there, but this article does not appear to be salvageable. Delete as an attack page, possible borderline speedy. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious neologism and OR. Chris! _ct 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not actually a neologism (the expression goes back decades), but not a notable development either. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment bad form is hardly a neologism! I used it only the other day, and it must date back to about the 1920s at least. Any wierd content here could be simply removed and the article rewritten. The problem would be whether it could be more than a dicdef. Here's a poster with it on, from 1915, not far off a century ago [21] sorry if it's a wierd source to have, but it's late lol.Merkinsmum (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as personal attack page. Possible Speedy Delete? --DAJF (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "scholars maintain it started around two years ago in a certain house in the Limerick area. Someone is having a laugh here. Whether the actual term itself is notable enough for a page is a whole different issue, but in this format, this page is simply not even slightly relevant. Tx17777 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —Animum (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NPA, WP:NOT#NEO, and WP:ENC. —Animum (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOT Alexfusco5 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think this article should be given a chance to grow and develop, like a fine wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.105 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This edit pretty much confirms the attack page aspect of my vote. Nate · (chatter) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone blanked the page today. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above really... :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portland Adventist Academy

Portland Adventist Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Article is a sub-stub about a school that provides NO evidence of notability, since there are NO references to any third-party sources. Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: And give it a chance to expand. Google News Search brings up a few articles that appear to be about the school. Given that the article was just recreated about 30 minutes ago, I'd like to give it some time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES high schools are generally regarded as notable, so there needs to be a good reason to treat this one as non-notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are usually considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:V and WP:N show me an independent source that could be used to add ANY information to this article beyond basic addresses and telephone numbers and the like? I would think that concepts like verifiability and notability trump WP:OUTCOMES every day and twice on sundays. WP:OUTCOMES does not contain any sources to expand this article, does it? Because I don't see any...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just checked google, 200something direct google hits, many of them either trivial mentions or non-indpendent, or very local news sources, fails WP:RS currently This is a Secret ^account 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a discussion going on here about notability of schools in general. I think it would be best to keep this particular school until the outcome of that discussion is known, and then re-nominate if necessary. It is a waste of everybody's time to go over the same issues in every school-related AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable in itself, due to a notable lawsuit: [22]. Not all high schools are de facto notable, such as clsoed, very small, or non-newsworthy, but this one makes the grade. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination But only, and let me make this clear, ONLY because Bearian's Booties found a reliable source that gives a clear indication of notability, NOT because it is merely a school, and thus should be granted some mythic "instant notability" status. However, the source above clearly shows this school is notable. This information needs to be added to the article in question. Good catch.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bente Christensen

Bente Christensen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources since June 2006. Article may have been an autobiographical page initially. Hammer1980·^talk 00:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: And add sources. She is obviously notable if she has been nominated for 6 2 Emmy's. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - How long for? Article has been waiting 15 months already. Maybe save to Users page until sources found. Hammer1980·^talk 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources present in the article shouldn't be a reason to delete it. Given the IMDB source below, it shows she is notable. That is a major award, although she did not win, she was still nominated, and that should help with the notability issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

However, lack of sources in the entire universe IS a reason to delete. The sources that do exist confirm that she holds a job. Holding a job, even if she is really good at her job, does not instantly make her notable. There are no "non-trivial" sources in existence, and WP:N requires that any sources used to establish notability must be non-trivial (i.e. contain real prose themselves, and which are not simply directory information).--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I said "present in the article". Generally speaking, lets say there were sources, which only made her notable because of her emmy nominations, would you say keep then? I am sticking with Keep, but it is apparent that it probably will be deleted. I know the sourcing does present a problem, and thats probably the only issue here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my only issue. 15 months is long time to wait for sources that should be easily found.Hammer1980·^talk 10:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I did two google searches, one using the name Bente Christensen, and one using her alternate name of Bente Christensen-Dukes. Neither one produced any non-trivial sources. Several directory-style filmographies were produced by IMDB and other like sites, but these amount to trivial content and provide no information to expand the article past the trivial/directory stage. Without any real prose text existing in external sources, she is not notable. If Rjd0060 thinks that sources exist which DO establish notability, perhaps he could provide those sources so that we can add them to the article in question? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to IMDB (the only cited source on the page), she was nominated for two Daytime Emmys, not six Emmys. I've changed that on the page. She was nominated for designing the set of The Price Is Right, and she shared those nominations with two other people. Looking at Production designer#Noted motion picture production designers, the number of notable people in this line of work is certainly much smaller than the number of people that have been nominated for awards. Fundamentally, there are no secondary sources claiming notability for this person. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. BlueMoonlet makes a good deconstruction of the shortfalls in notability. I would feel differently should she have actually won those Emmy awards, but we don't need to have an article for everyone who managed to get a nomination over the years. That is a pretty long list. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no relaible evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pel Mel

Pel Mel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable, non sourced and a disbanded band English836 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not meet MUSIC, and is unsourced. Since they do not exist any longer, I don't think they will suddenly meet MUSIC standards any time in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: A [google search] turns up a lot of borderline-reliability type citations. While its not much, this isn't just a band that plays in moms garage. For a band that has been disbanded this long, there is a surprising amount of pub out there. While I have not yet found any reliable sources on the web, I am not convinced that there are no reliable sources out there, for example reliable print media contemporary to the band that exists only in print form.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. They're more than a garage band but fall short of WP:MUSIC, with only one compilation appearance making AllMusic, and no citations period from Google News Archive (although this period is not generally covered) or Google Books. Might be appropriate on a punk-music Wikia or some such but short of our standards. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable band. The fact that they are disbanded is totally irrelevant. Pel Mel were a key band in the Australian post-punk scene, supporting the likes of New Order when they toured there. They released two albums on the EMI-related GAP records, which itself is sufficient for WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a notable part of the Australian post-punk scene. Sources have been added. 96T (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems to be marginally notable enough, with two albums on a label that's part of EMI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article in current form does meet WP:MUSIC.Garrie 10:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)